Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Roads, Wiltshire

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his current estimate of capital expenditure on roads in Wiltshire in the next three years.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope): Capital expenditure on trunk road schemes in Wiltshire in the next three years will be approximately £50 million.

Mr. Coombs: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that most helpful and encouraging answer. Can he do anything to speed up the rate at which the link between the M4 at Swindon and the M5 at Gloucester is increased to dual carriageway status throughout its length? Will my hon. Friend also consider the roads to the south of Swindon through Marlborough and Devizes to Salisbury? If he saw those for himself, I am sure that he would agree that they are of low quality, given the volume of traffic using them every day.

Mr. Chope: The roads to the south of Swindon are the responsibility of the local authority—Wiltshire county council. The roads between Swindon and Gloucester, however, are the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.
I am pleased to say that work on the Latton bypass is due to start next year, at a cost of about £17 million, and there are five other schemes on that road, at a total cost of £100 million. My hon. Friend's constituents will recognise that it is vital for the future prosperity of Swindon that those schemes be implemented as quickly as possible. They would be delayed, if not cancelled, were the Labour party to take control.

A13

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to accelerate the proposed work on the A 13 between the M25 and outer London.

Mr. Chope: My right hon. and learned Friend has today announced his intention that a major advanced works contract on the A13 Wennington to Mar Dyke scheme should be started in the coming financial year, subject to satisfactory completion of remaining procedures.

Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he take my word for it that my constituents are horrified by Labour party proposals to review the trunk road programme? That would be devastating to my part of the country—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should put a question to the Minister.

Mrs. Gorman: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the meantime we could so something to improve the A13, because it carries major freight from Ford at Dagenham, from Tilbury docks and from Shell Haven, all of which involve developing industries in my part of the country?

Mr. Chope: I agree that the A 13 is of fundamental importance for the prosperity of my hon. Friend's constituents and of many others in the east Thames corridor. Apart from the Wennington to Mar Dyke scheme, I am pleased to say that about £455 million worth of improvements—dualling, flyovers and junction improvements—are planned for that section of the A13.

Mr. Wolfson: On major road improvements on trunk roads and motorways, what progress is my hon. Friend making in achieving lower noise levels through better surfacing? What consideration is being given to noise barriers of various kinds?

Mr. Chope: There are a number of experiments at the moment to improve the noise environment on our motorways and they include the most modern technology for noise barriers. We also have studies under way to determine whether it is possible to use a porous asphalt surface on some roads, as that would reduce noise for people living near those roads. We certainly take into account the effects on local residents of noise from roads and we are doing our best to minimise them.

Road Casualties

Mr. Stevens: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what asssessment he has made of the contribution the road-building programme can make to reducing road casualties.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): It is currently estimated that, for every £100 million invested in trunk road improvements, about 100 road deaths and 4,500 casualties are saved over a 30-year period. The House will be pleased to know that in 1991 there appear to have been lower fatalities on our roads than in any year since the 1940s, despite a ninefold increase in the amount of traffic.

Mr. Stevens: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply which shows that the programme for road improvements not only increases traffic flows and reduces congestion but makes a direct and positive contribution to the reduction of road casualties. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will know that in areas such as mine, which has the A5 running through it, the improvements have been greatly appreciated. My Conservative county council strongly supports the Government target of reducing accidents by one third by the year 2000. Has my right hon. and learned Friend any thoughts on the implications of delaying or abandoning the substantial road programme that he has proposed, such as is advocated by the Opposition?

Mr. Rifkind: That would indeed have a serious effect. For example, this morning we announced the spending of £760 million on road improvement projects in the forthcoming financial year. That is likely to save 700 lives and more than 30,000 casualties over the next 30 years. It is important for the Opposition to bear it in mind that their opposition to the roads programme is a recipe not only for increased congestion but for increased fatalities and casualties on our roads.

Mr. Fearn: About 12 months ago, I asked the Secretary of State a question about the safety of the lighting on the M6. It appears that the lighting has not been improved and that there are black holes all the way along the M6. Two particular spots with many accidents have been highlighted lately. Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman any proposal to improve the lighting on the M6 where black holes exist?

Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have major proposals to widen the M6 and obviously the lighting on part of that road will be improved when the proposals are implemented. We give serious consideration to safety recommendations and, where lighting would make an important contribution to reducing casualties, it is an important factor.

Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Winchester bypass is one of the most dangerous pieces of road in the country? The latest figures show that the death and serious injury rate on that road is five times the national motorway average. There is widespread support for completing that road at the earliest opportunity. The proposition that it passes through one of the most beautiful parts of England is total nonsense, because it passes through what is virtually surburban Southampton. Opposition comes mainly from a handful of self-interested people and some foreign thugs. Will my right hon. and learned Friend do everything that he can to complete that road as soon as possible?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the serious congestion in the Winchester area. We attach importance to environmental considerations and the House will be aware that there have already been, I think, four public inquiries into the project over 20 years. It is crucial to make progress in completing the Winchester bypass as soon as possible. We are taking account of environmental considerations. There are substantial environmental benefits to be had from the proposed project because of the ability to reunite St. Catherine's hill with the town of Winchester. At the moment the two areas are divorced by a road that will revert to green fields when the project is complete.

Mr. Prescott: The Secretary of State's new £750 million road electoral bribe is something old, something borrowed and something blue. The programme contains a promise to improve the M25 between junctions 15 and 16. However, Tory party central office says that the M25 will be widened to four lanes at a cost of £4 billion. Who are we to believe—the Secretary of State for Transport or Tory party central office in a different statement which was issued this afternoon?

Mr. Rifkind: I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman is holding a copy of our document headed "Labour's Threat to Road Projects". I trust that he will not only read

it but absorb its implications. If he does, he will recognise the serious warning by the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors that if a Labour Government imposed a freeze on the roads programme, up to 20,000 jobs could be lost in the construction industry. I trust that he will take account of the road safety dangers that are inherent in his policy. Finally, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remind his colleagues in the shadow Cabinet, including the shadow Chancellor, that they should not advocate major road projects in their constituencies at the same time as the Labour party seeks to impede progress elsewhere in the country.

Channel Tunnel

Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss improving the rail links between the channel tunnel and north-west England.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): British Rail plans to run channel tunnel freight services from terminals at Trafford Park, Manchester and Seaforth, Merseyside. British Rail has ordered channel tunnel day-and-night trains which will run on the west coast main line.

Mr. Evans: Is the Minsiter aware that most people in north-west England, including the Railway Industry Association, believe that it is economic madness to open the channel tunnel without first providing a proper linkage between the north-west and the channel tunnel? What response does the Minister have to the association's recent criticism that neither the Government nor British Rail has a strategy against which manufacturing industry can plan its future?

Mr. Freeman: As regards long-term plans by British Rail for expanding services and re-equipping certain lines, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that Sir Bob Reid, the chairman, published a document in the middle of last year which looked forward 10 years to railway investment. That level of investment, currently running at £1 billion a year, will be sustained by the Government over the public expenditure planning period which runs for the next three years and, I am quite confident, will run over the next 10 years.

Mr. Mans: Is my hon. Friend aware that people up in the north-west welcome the prospect of the channel tunnel being opened? Will he ensure that sufficient facilities are made available north of Manchester and Liverpool to allow people and freight to be carried on the trains? Does he agree that it ill behoves the Labour party to comment on that because Labour was against the channel tunnel at its inception?

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Freight services will run through the channel tunnel from its opening. The locomotives and wagons are ordered. As for passenger services, the new Waterloo terminal is substantially complete. It will be open by summer next year. Passengers on trains running from the north-west into Euston will be able to cross London and catch a train at Waterloo and, in addition, some of the trains will run directly to Waterloo.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the Minister support British Rail's policy of siting freight depots only where it can find developers to put money into facilities around the depot? Does he think that that is the way that one should plan the freight movement from the north-west through the channel tunnel?

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Lady is misinformed. Of the nine terminals that will be opened by the summer of next year, the majority are already owned by British Rail and will be developed for channel tunnel freight services. Some of them will be developed further with the use of private sector capital—particularly Port Wakefield if, as a result of the public inquiry to be held this month, a decision to go ahead is given. The majority of the terminals are British Rail terminals.

Mr. Butler: Given that 46 per cent. of British Rail's freight business originates in the north-west, is not it strange that British Rail has not talked to the majority of its users already about times and tariffs for the channel tunnel?

Mr. Freeman: I am certain that British Rail will shortly publish its scheduled freight services from the nine terminals. It has already published a preliminary timetable and, as I understand it, preliminary tariffs. My hon. Friend will know that the Government have proposed a major new initiative in rail freight by encouraging the private sector to run additional services on British Rail track.

Mr. Prescott: Will the Minister confirm that the Government were heavily involved in negotiations with British Rail to produce the passengers charter, which was condemned universally last week? During the negotiations, was the Minister a party to setting the target of acceptability for the west coast main line at 90 per cent? He will know that only 85 per cent. has been achieved and that the 15 per cent. shortfall is due to track failure and old rolling stock. Would it be better to confirm the order for the west coast main line instead of negotiating a bonus for the chairman that is worth £53,000?

Mr. Freeman: I would advise the hon. Gentleman not to believe what he reads in the newspapers about the bonus for British Rail's chairman. There is no truth in those articles.
British Rail has not yet put an investment proposition to the Department for the west coast main line. It will be for expenditure in the mid-1990s. It is an extremely important investment project.
The passengers charter has been warmly welcomed by many of my Back-Bench colleagues—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—many of whom are sitting behind me. The Government had the initiative to work with British Rail to introduce it. The hon. Gentleman has no proposals whatsoever.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: During the discussions that will range from the channel tunnel to the north-west of England, will my hon. Friend remember that he will have to cross north-west Kent? Will he take note of the campaign to sink the link, as the channel tunnel rail link passes Gravesend and Northfleet? We do not see why we should pay the environmental price for manifest improvements for the people of north-west England.

Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend refers to the proposals for a new high-speed rail link from Folkestone to King's

Cross. I can give him the assurance that both he and the local authority in his constituency will have ample opportunity to express their views on how best to design the line to reduce the environmental impact.

Buses

Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review the regulations covering safety and roadworthiness of buses.

Mr. Freeman: Regulations covering the safety and roadworthiness of buses are kept under continuous review. However, buses are the safest form of road transport in this country and the Government strongly support the growth of bus services, especially in urban areas.

Dr. Howells: Is the Minister aware that in my constituency people refer to buses these days, following deregulation, as bananas because they tend to arrive in bunches? [Laughter.] One Conservative Member has a sense of humour. Is the Minister further aware that there has been an enormous erosion of confidence in the reliability and roadworthiness of buses since deregulation, especially in south Wales during a period in which monopolies have been created as stronger firms capture weaker ones and cowboy fleets undercut the operations of firms that are much more conscientious and safety conscious?

Mr. Freeman: The bunching of buses occurs largely because of congestion in urban areas. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have recently announced a £10 million programme to provide grants to local authorities to enable them to give priority to buses through the construction of bus lanes and by giving priority to buses at traffic lights. That initiative has been widely welcomed.
There is no statistical evidence to support the contention that deregulation has led to a decline in the quality and roadworthiness of buses. Passenger casualty rates have fallen by 30 per cent. in the past five years. There has been a fall in the proportion of buses that have been taken off the roads because of serious defects found during the vehicle inspectorate's examination.

Mr. Evennett: Will my hon. Friend confirm that safety regulations for buses remain the same whether the services are deregulated or regulated? Will he confirm also that the regulations are entirely independent of the industry?

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has reminded me of what I should have said in my supplementary answer to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). My hon. Friend is absolutely right; there is no difference in the standards applied to the initial test or spot checks on the roadside, whether the buses are in a regulated or deregulated environment.

Ms. Ruddock: Is the Minister aware that one third of the country's bus fleet is now more than 12 years old, which is double the proportion before deregulation? Does he realise that, given the present replacement rate, the average bus will be on the road for 30 years? Surely that can only mean the collapse of the bus industry, less safe services and less access for people with disabilities. Why does not the hon. Gentleman admit that bus deregulation has been a disaster? Why does not he direct more of his roads bribes money towards the provision of better buses?

Mr. Freeman: As it so happens, on Thursday I had the opportunity to visit Derby, together with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), whose constituency is there. I met the management of Trent Buses, which operates in a very competitive, deregulated environment, and I am glad to say that its investment programme over the past five years has been impressive.

M25 Traffic Flow

Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the proposed improvements to traffic flows on the M25 in Surrey will take account of environmental considerations.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): All motorway and major trunk road schemes are subject to rigorous environmental assessment.

Mr. Taylor: Although I accept the necessity to improve traffic flows and safety on the M25, may I ask my hon. Friend to take into account environmental considerations such as the need to keep noise down to a minimum? In particular, will he ensure that any widening is within the existing boundaries of the M25 and that the lighting, which is there to help motorists, does not infringe on the villages and the countryside of Surrey?

Mr. McLoughlin: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. The M25 is being lit in an attempt to reduce the number of accidents, to enhance driver comfort and to increase the security of motorists whose vehicles have broken down. I assure my hon. Friend that lighting schemes will be designed to minimise visual intrusion into neighbouring property. Much use will be made of the full-cut-off lanterns, which reduce the minimum spill of light outside the highway boundaries. I confirm that it is not our intention to widen the M25 outside its present curtilage.

Motorway Service Areas

Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what response he has received from organisations concerned with the countryside about his ideas for extra motorway service areas.

Mr. McLoughlin: We issued a consultation document on the provision of motorway services on 10 February. Copies were sent to a number of organisations with countryside interests. The Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland has responded. It was concerned that proposed new arrangements should not lead to undue development in sensitive areas and it favoured a degree of continuing Government control over minimum standards at motorway service areas.

Mr. Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is still time for various groups, whether environmental or road safety, to respond to the Government's proposals? Does he understand that planning permission was initially gained, with difficulty, for the building of motorways through areas of outstanding natural beauty and great environmental sensitivity, so many people would not be keen to see developers spending hundreds of thousands —if not millions—of pounds fighting in a long succession

of inquiries so that they can build not just motorway service areas—possibly excluding the disabled and lorries —but hotels and other facilities that would never have received permission when the original planning consent was granted?

Mr. McLoughlin: I confirm that there is still time for organisations to respond to our proposals and we expect more representations during the consultation period. My hon. Friend raised matters that we will want to consider carefully. However, most people would welcome a greater availability of motorway service stations. A number of people have expressed their concern that there are almost 200 miles of motorway without one. The proposals in the consultation document will go a long way towards improving the facilities and the standards that drivers expect from motorway service areas.

Ms. Walley: When the Minister consults the countryside organisations about motorway service stations, will he also discuss the wider environmental implications of the Government's transport policy? Has he seen the report published today by the Council for the Protection of Rural England? If, over the next decade, there is to be a 50 per cent. rise in traffic demand, is not it about time that his Department stopped being a Department only for roads and instead sought to introduce a proper, integrated transport system that takes real account of environmental considerations?

Mr. McLoughlin: Well, there we have it. That sums up the Labour party's attitude, which is against a roads policy. The Opposition should go to a number of towns where bypasses have been built, which have been warmly welcomed. I assure my hon. Friends that we will continue to provide those bypasses where schemes are put forward. They are environmentally friendly and they lead to less congestion. That helps the environment; it does not damage it.

Mr. Ashby: Will my hon. Friend take into account motorway service areas of the kind found in France—which do not have restaurants, hotels or facilities of that kind, but offer lavatories, running water and parking places, so that the motorist can stretch his legs and rest before continuing his journey? Such stopping places are cheap and good, and we need them in this country.

Mr. McLoughlin: I hope that the consultation document will prompt a number of proposals of the kind that my hon. Friend makes, and we will certainly consider them.

Second Severn Crossing

Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will visit the site of the second Severn crossing at Caldicot, Gwent.

Mr. Chope: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: If the Secretary of State were to visit Caldicot, the people there would quickly remind him that Wales is in a state of deep repression—I mean, depression. They see no sense in imposing tolls on the existing bridge of £2·80 for a motor car, £5·60 for a minibus, and £8·40 for a lorry. Have not the Government given the French-backed consortium a licence to print money?

Mr. Chope: I am disappointed at the hon. Gentleman's negative attitude to a £300 million-plus investment in a second crossing of the Severn, which will improve enormously communications for the people of Wales. There is considerable confusion among Labour Members over whether their party supports continued tolling. We heard only last week from Labour's deputy leader that his party would abandon tolling in Scotland. If that policy were applied throughout Britain, as was also said by the right hon. Gentleman, it would cost £1·2 billion—an additional cost to the taxpayer which could only mean less investment in roads. The Opposition's policy is confused—and I do not agree that the people of Wales are repressed.

Mr. Anderson: Is it not clear that the substantial staged increases in respect of the existing bridge are being imposed simply to provide money for the second, privatised bridge? Did the Welsh Office, because of the enormous blows to the location policy in Wales, bother to make representations against them?

Mr. Chope: The Government are united in their commitment to improving road communications in Wales. Labour was the first party to introduce the idea of a Severn crossing—and of a tolled crossing, at that. Labour does not have a clear policy on whether it believes in a second and tolled crossing, or wants just one very congested bridge—which would be very bad news for Wales.

A12 Chelmsford Bypass

Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects work to commence on upgrading the A12 Chelmsford bypass from a two-lane to a three-lane road.

Mr. Chope: Consultants are working on possible route options, and we plan to publish them in the summer of next year.

Mr. Burns: Is my hon. Friend aware that prior to the opening of the A12 Chelmsford bypass in 1986, the Army and Navy roundabout in Chelmsford was the most heavily congested traffic blackspot in the country? After that bypass opened, congestion was greatly reduced—but it is beginning to increase again because of the greater use of the A12 as a route into the hinterland of East Anglia, to the ports of Ipswich, Harwich and Felixstowe. Will my hon. Friend bear it in mind that the sooner a third lane is constructed to alleviate Chelmsford traffic, the happier will be my constituents?

Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend gives a timely reminder of the benefits of investment in our roads infrastructure. I am grateful for his congratulations to the Government on the completion of the Chelmsford bypass. We are committed to improving it further as a result of increased traffic, which is largely a consequence of the success of the east coast ports.

Sir Robert McCrindle: As this might be my last opportunity to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to the topic of the proposed M12 between Chelmsford and the M25, I seek his assurance that when he receives alternative proposals for that motorway's line of route, he will take into account that such a motorway may not be required. That is the overwhelming response

that I have received, and I suspect that the same is true of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). Rather than presume that a motorway is required, will my hon. Friend the Minister acknowledge that there is at least one other option—to leave things as they are?

Mr. Chope: Certainly the Government will take into account all the views expressed during the consultation period.
My hon. Friend's successor will have a hard act to follow: the diligence and commitment that my hon. Friend has given to his constituents have been exemplary.

Roads, West Midlands

Mr. Roger King: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the programme of road building in the west midlands.

Mr. Rifkind: We are pressing ahead with the Birmingham northern relief road and western orbital route. The A5-A49 Telford-Shrewsbury improvements and two other bypasses are opening this year, and we are also supporting a £446 million local roads programme.

Mr. King: My right hon. and learned Friend will understand that the west midlands conurbation, lying as it does in a landlocked area, is responsible for the bulk of the country's manufacturing industry, and that it depends on adequate and improving road conditions. Does he accept that there is widespread support from industry and the community generally for the Government's roads programme? Without it, the whole area would be economically strangulated; but that is not the view of the Opposition, whose transport spokesman—the organ grinder—has now left the Chamber, but who would condemn every aspect of our road building programme.

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the vital contribution that our roads programme will make to the west midlands economy, and to contrast that with the appalling implications of Labour's proposals. I note that, in addition to the party's moratorium on the roads programme, the shadow Secretary of State for Transport has imposed a moratorium on his own presence in the Chamber.

Mr. Snape: This electioneering is an expensive business, Mr. Speaker.
Will the Secretary of State tell the House what proportion of his Department's projected minimum increase of 80 per cent. in road traffic will be absorbed by this latest pre-election bribe? Will he also tell us why he has refused to adopt the alternative package approach, involving a mixture of public transport and road schemes, that has been advocated by local authorities in the west midlands? Finally, does the Secretary of State accept that, no matter how much money he tries to throw around now, he will not save his hon. Friends' necks?

Mr. Rifkind: We are delighted to hear from the shadow to the shadow Secretary of State. He must appreciate that we do have a mixed public-transport and roads programme. In the autumn statement, we announced major increases in rail expenditure in particular. Labour's proposed attempt to finance improvements in our rail expenditure, at the expense of our roads programme, would result in massive unemployment in the construction


industry, along with an increase in the number of casualties on our roads. It would also bring deep depression to many members of communities who are looking forward to the bypasses that the present Government have promised. That promise would not be implemented if the Opposition ever came to power.

Motorway Repairs

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received about the speed with which motorway repairs are undertaken.

Mr. Chope: The most recent representation has concerned the removal of the Ingst bridge on the M4.

Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend believe that the public are satisfied that motorway repairs are being undertaken in the shortest possible time? There has been some improvement in recent years, but are not further measures needed to speed up the process?

Mr. Chope: It is because of the concern expressed by my hon. Friend and others that the Government are committed to a further increase in the use of the "lane rental" method of procurement of motorway repairs. I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that, in a recent study on maintenance techniques across the world, the World bank has confirmed that the United Kingdom carries out such work faster than any other country.

Mr. Haynes: I shall wait to see what happens about the speed of motorway repairs. While the Secretary of State is looking at that, however, will he also take a look at the idiots who race through these roadworks? They have flipping telephones as well. It is time that the Secretary of State did something about that.

Mr. Chope: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not speed through road works, and I hope that he will set a good example, which others will follow.

Fenchurch Street Line

Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received on the Fenchurch Street line.

Mr. Freeman: I have received a number of representations recently about the Fenchurch Street line. The Government appreciate that that line does not provide the quality of service which passengers can reasonably expect. British Rail will, however, shortly be letting a contract to renew the signalling at a total cost of £50 million. That should help to improve services.

Mr. Amess: Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to Mr. Martyn Rands, chairman of Basildon commuters' club—and to his hard-working committee—who met my hon. Friend this morning and presented him with a petition, signed by 5,000 people in my constituency, complaining about the disgraceful service that they receive on the Fenchurch Street line? Will my hon. Friend agree to tell the chairman of British Rail that he must do everything that he possibly can to improve the standard of service on that line for my constituents before 1995?

Mr. Freeman: I certainly shall, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his assiduous representations on behalf of

his constituents. Largely because of his representations, it was a pleasure to announce the resignalling of that line recently.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Ministerial Visit

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next expects to pay an official visit to Lancashire.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Chris Patten): I have no plans to visit Lancashire in the near future.

Mr. Skinner: I have no doubt that during the general election campaign the chairman of the Tory party will be spreading himself about a little bit, even though he has a tiny majority in Bath. Is he aware that I shall be following him in Lancashire? I shall be telling the Lancashire electors about the fact that the Tory party is financing its election campaign with money from Hong Kong, with £2 million from a Greek fascist and £440,000 from Asil Nadir—money which he stole from his company—and will the chairman of the Tory party—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should bear the sub judice rule in mind. Some of those cases are before the courts at the moment.

Mr. Skinner: That money has not been declared in the company accounts of Polly Peck. Will the chairman of the Tory party send that money back to its rightful owners, bearing in mind the fact that the Labour party has agreed to send back Maxwell's money, if it is found to have had any connection with the Mirror group pension fund? That decision was passed unanimously and if it is good enough for us it should be good enough for the Tories.

Mr. Patten: I do not think that the Labour party could possibly repay the debt that it owes to the late Captain Maxwell. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and I manage to spend a little time in Lancashire together, and that he will come to Bath. He will find that in both Bath and Lancashire the electorate has as little faith in Labour's policies as he has.

Mr. Rowe: Can my right hon. Friend spare a moment from Lancashire to come to Maidstone, where he will be able to share our pleasure—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about Lancashire.

Mr. Rowe: My right hon. Friend will be aware, when he next visits Lancashire, that the news that the Liberal council has had to give up office in Maidstone has travelled the length and breadth of the land—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a bit wide of the subject.

Mr. Enright: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next intends to visit the Duchy.

Mr. Chris Patten: I have no plans to visit the Duchy in the near future, nor Maidstone, nor Basildon.

Mr. Enright: Would the Chancellor reconsider that decision because, when he next goes to the Duchy of Lancaster he may go to confession and admit to the untruths that are being told by his party in party-political


broadcasts? He could admit that the 7 million days that allegedly were lost in one year under a Labour Government were lost under this Government, in less than three days because of unemployment. As a penance, will he restore the £500,000 that he stole from the shareholders of Polly Peck—

Mr. Speaker: Order. [SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: "On a point of order, Mr. Speaker."] Leave it to me, please. This case is sub judice. Will the hon. Gentleman please not use the word "stolen"?

Mr. Enright: That his party has taken from Polly Peck shareholders—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the sub judice rule.

Mr. Enright: If there is a court case, I shall refrain from commenting further, but would the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster urge the Tory party to refrain from wallowing in sleaze, which he calls scholarly?

Mr. Patten: One realises from studying the affairs surrounding the Maxwell Group that the Opposition know everything that there is to know about sleaze. The confessional is a matter of secrecy, but what is not secret is that, when they were really working at it, the previous Labour Government ensured that far more than 7 million days a year were lost through strikes.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

National Audit Office (Public Relations)

Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission how much the National Audit Office spends on public relations, publicity and parliamentary relations.

Sir Peter Hordern (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The National Audit Office handles its own public relations, publicity and parliamentary relations work and one member of staff acts as press officer. Advance copies of reports are provided to the press and other interested parties at a cost of about £6,000 a year. In addition, the office produces an annual report at a cost of about £8,000 and periodic booklets on its work.

Mr. Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend pass to the National Audit Office the thanks of Parliament for its series of reports and ask whether it would be possible for us to have them at a time when Parliament is likely to be sitting rather than at one minute to midnight for the benefit of the press? That would be regarded by the House as a sensible courtesy.

Sir Peter Hordern: The National Audit Office normally lays reports before the House five to seven days before publication. Once a report has been laid and a copy placed in the Library, it is available for any Member of Parliament to read. The Votes and Proceedings record daily items laid before the House. I understand, however, from the Comptroller and Auditor General that he would be happy to let any Member have an advance copy of a report if the Member indicates his interest. A list giving likely publications by the Comptroller and Auditor General in the coming months will now be made available in the Library.

Mr. Tim Smith: Does my hon. Friend think that the excellent work of the NAO is sufficiently well understood and appreciated by hon. Members? If not, as some changes will be made to its membership after the election, will he consider writing to all Members explaining how the system works—what the Public Accounts Commission, the Public Accounts Committee and the NAO do?

Sir Peter Hordern: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion. I should certainly like to consider it. It is a great pity that hon. Members do not take more notice of the admirable reports that are made by the Comptroller and Auditor General, which are followed up so well by the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is not it true that some documents that the Public Accounts Committee receives are not published, such as the memorandum that the National Audit Office drew up for me on the accountability of United Nations agencies? Is not it possible to put many of those documents in the public domain and publish them as Public Accounts Committee documents? Will the hon. Gentleman have a word with the Chairman and members of the Public Accounts Committee about that?

Sir Peter Hordern: I should certainly like to consider that suggestion. Perhaps I could write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a Bill to extend the powers of the National Audit Office to consider the Opposition's policies? Will he consider the staffing levels needed to cost the billions of pounds of wholly uncosted pledges made by the Opposition day after day, week after week? Would not that be an enormous and unfair burden on the NAO?

Sir Peter Hordern: I think that it would place great strain not only on the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff but on the budget of the Public Accounts Commission itself if it had to authorise such expenditure.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Ministerial Visit

Mr. Dunn: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has any plans to visit the Duchy in the near future; and if he will make a statement.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Chris Patten): I refer to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) some moments ago.

Mr. Dunn: Does the Chancellor of the Duchy realise that a visit to Lancashire—to the Duchy—in the near future—

Mr. Corbyn: He does not even know where it is.

Mr. Dunn: I was born there. Would not such a visit provide a glorious opportunity to point out that the assisted places scheme—among other major educational advances—would be abolished under a Labour Government, thereby denying many bright children in the Duchy the opportunity of a first-rate education?

Mr. Patten: I share a birthplace with my hon. Friend, and I also share his concern about the future of the assisted places scheme. There are 295 schools in England benefiting from the scheme, and eight are in Lancashire. It is astonishing that the Labour party keep putting it on record that it is prepared to defend independent schools but refuses to allow poorer families to send their children to them. That is astonishing humbug.

Dr. Cunningham: Will the Chancellor of the Duchy reconsider his decision and pay a visit to the north-west, especially so that he can meet the 800 people a week who have lost their job since this time last year as a result of the Government's policies? When he is there, will he explain to the people of the north-west why he has changed his mind about borrowing? Does he recall saying in his Disraeli lecture to a Conservative audience that high levels of borrowing were nothing more than deferred taxation? Why has he changed his mind?

Mr. Patten: In the less demotic phases of my career I have given a number of lectures, most of them described as the Disraeli lectures, some as the Macmillan lecture and some even as the Macleod lecture. As for the borrowing lecture and the lecture on job creation, I have been able to state on a number of occasions when I have been a little more demotic that all independent forecast suggest that under a Labour Government—heaven forbid—borrowing and unemployment would be higher.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Select Committee Reports

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Lord President of the Council how many reports have been produced by House of Commons Select Committees during the current Session; and if he will make a statement.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): In Session 1991–92, to 5 March, Select Committees published 54 reports and nine special reports.

Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend say how often these reports are considered on the Floor of the House? When he does, he will accept that it is not often enough. Will he take particular note of the excellent report on reading by the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts which established that reading standards have certainly not fallen and that teachers of reading should be congratulated on the excellent job that they do? If that report were debated, it would surely spread confidence in the teaching of reading which would benefit everyone, including hon. Members.

Mr. McGregor: The reports are debated in the House and we follow the practice of the Select Committee on Procedure which recommended three days for such reports. When I was Secretary of State for Education and Science I recall being concerned about the implications of some methods of teaching reading if they are followed too acutely—in other words, without a balance of reading methods. I know that that caused some concern, but, broadly speaking, my hon. Friend is right to say that standards in our schools are very good.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Lord President explain the priorities that he adopts in providing time for debating the reports? He provided time rapidly for the Select Committee on Sittings of the House which concerned curtailing hon. Members' hours. Yet for more than three months he has had in his hands the report by the Select Committee on Members' Interests which recommends changes in the registration of commercial lobbying interests. Is not that because many Tory Members are up to their necks in money received for commercial lobbying of one sort or another? The right hon. Gentleman did not provide time for such a debate because he did not want to embarrass the Tory party so close to a general election.

Mr. MacGregor: That is absolute nonsense. It had nothing to do with that. Hon. Members of all parties who have interests have them declared in the register, as the hon. Gentleman knows. The reason why we have not been able to debate the report is that we have had a great deal of other business to do. We have made extremely good progress with the most important business—Government legislation. However, I thought it right to debate the report of the Select Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) because many hon. Members of all parties, which was not the case with the other Select Committee report, asked me to find an early opportunity to enable the House to give its initial response to that splendid and important report.

Palace of Westminster (Security)

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Lord President of the Council what new arrangements he proposes to improve security in the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. MacGregor: It has been the long-standing practice of Leaders of the House not to comment on matters of security within the Palace of Westminster. I can, however, reassure the hon. Gentleman that we regularly keep security matters under review and take all necessary further steps in the light of such reviews.

Mr. Flynn: Will the Lord President urge the security services to concentrate their search for the alleged theft of information from hon. Members on the organisations that regularly spy on hon. Members, including the organisation that last week published a ludicrous volume full of slanders and innuendos about hon. Members? Will the right hon. Gentleman stop the self-defeating, ludicrous, sleazy, muck-raking by the Conservative party's thought police?

Mr. MacGregor: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the document that was recently published by Conservative Central Office—

Mr. Flynn: This one.

Mr. MacGregor: "Who's Left?". There is no need to have any security inquiry into that document because it uses published, freely available sources. There is no sleaze. It is a document about the Labour party's policy attitudes and it rightly points out that more than half of Labour Members have either recently belonged to or still belong to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. It is an important contribution to discussion and to policy attitudes on important matters.

Mr. Dykes: As the Lord President has successfully demolished the Opposition's spurious arguments, will he get back to real questions of security and take time to pay tribute to all who look after security in the Palace of Westminster? It is a nightmarish and difficult job for them all and sometimes we sound a little bit too critical.

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I am happy to pay tribute to the security services. They do a good job in the House, under the Serjeant at Arms. It is not an easy task and it depends, for example, on thefts being reported. It does not help when distorted and misleading accusations, often with no foundation, are made by one or two hon. Members.

Question Time

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he has any further plans to propose changes to the order and method of Question Time; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. MacGregor: I have no plans to do so in the current Parliament.

Mr. Skinner: May I make a suggestion to the Leader of the House?

Mr. Speaker: It should be a question.

Mr. Skinner: It is a question. Do not panic. Is the Lord President aware that the Prime Minister has not been doing very cleverly lately in Question Time? He had to apologise about that young girl Carly because he got it all wrong. Then he got the public sector borrowing requirement wrong. Will the right hon. Gentleman take on board the idea of giving the Prime Minister a mentor who could sit by his side for these last two days to help him out? Perhaps he might use the ex-Prime Minister to give him a chuck on. May I make the further suggestion that when it is all over on 9 April we get the right hon. Gentleman a new job—a walk-on part in a re-run of "Crossroads" or as a substitute for Ken Barlow.

Mr. MacGregor: I sometimes think that the hon. Gentleman is so busy thinking up his contorted questions that he does not observe what is going on in the House at other times. If he had been observing, he would have noticed that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been scoring heavily at Prime Minister's Question Time —winning hands down. Whenever the election comes, the hon. Gentleman will find that the electorate has also noticed that.

Sir John Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that very few people in the country will share any of the views of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? Question Time is unique to this Parliament. It is very much admired by foreign parliaments and enables the Prime Minister and others to answer questions in front of us all. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has done extremely well and will continue to do so for many years to come.

Mr. MacGregor: As always, my hon. Friend talks great sense, and I agree with everything that he has said.

Mr. Winnick: May we have a change in our procedure for questioning the Leader of the House who last week announced the business for the following week even though he apparently knows that the election is to be called for 9 April and that the business will therefore be changed? Why should the Leader of the House be in a position to give the wrong information to the House, given that he will almost certainly be making another business statement this week? As Leader of the House, does not he have a responsibility to the whole House?

Mr. MacGregor: My business statement every week is based on the position as I see it at the time and we have organised matters at the time. There are occasions—there have been occasions in this Parliament—when I have to make a supplementary business statement. I always make the statement at the time—as I did last Thursday—based on the information available to me and on the right process for the House for the following week.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many of us would like to ask how it is possible to contemplate spending an extra £38 billion without increasing taxes, increasing unemployment and increasing prices? Will he therefore amend Question Time to allow us to ask questions of the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes a point which my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will be making on many occasions in the weeks ahead. The reason why the Opposition do not like Question Time and try to drown my right hon. Friend out is that they know that we are right in everything that we say and that the country will not support them on their policies.

Mr. Rees: If the election were not to be held until May or June, would an announcement be made next time we have business questions?

Mr. MacGregor: Business questions are always about the business for the next week.

Trust Ports

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the progress that has been made on the privatisation of the trust ports since the Ports Act 1991 received Royal Assent in July of last year. The main objective of the Government in promoting the legislation was to enable the major trust ports to bring themselves into the private sector.
On 28 January I announced that I had given my consent to the sale of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority's undertaking to Teesside Holdings Ltd and that sale has been completed. The Forth ports authority intends to seek the privatisation of its undertaking on 12 March by floating it on the stock exchange. The boards of the Clyde port authority and of the Medway ports authority have now put to me their recommendations concerning the sales of their ports; the board of the Port of London authority has put to me its recommendation concerning the sale of the port of Tilbury.
Different objectives were agreed for the sales of the three ports, but in all three cases they included encouraging the disposal to managers and employees of the whole or a substantial part of the equity share capital; seeking the best open market price subject to the other objectives; and continuing the port operations of the undertakings.
I am satisfied that, in all three cases, the boards conducted the sales in a fair and proper manner. In particular, I am satisfied that each of them carefully assessed the bids for their ports against the agreed objectives of sale.
The Clyde port authority board concluded that the bid made by Clydeport Holdings Ltd, a management and employee buy-out team, satisfied most appropriately and fully the objectives of sale. It was also the largest bid in monetary terms. Under the terms of the bid at least 60 per cent. of the equity share capital of the company will be held by managers and employees. The Clyde port authority board has accordingly recommended to me that its successor company should be sold to Clydeport Holdings Ltd.
The Medway ports authority received only one final bid for its undertaking. This was from Medports Mebo Ltd, also a management and employee buy-out team. The board considered that the bid fully met the agreed objectives of sale. Under the terms of the bid, 51 per cent. of the equity share capital will be held by managers and employees of the company and an employee share ownership trust. The Medway ports authority board has recommended that its successor company should be sold to Medports Mebo Ltd.
The Port of London authority board concluded that the bid by International Transport Ltd, also a management and employee buy-out team, best met the agreed objectives. It was also the largest bid in monetary terms. Up to 50·1 per cent. of the equity share capital and 7·5 per cent. of preference capital will be available to managers and employees of the company. The board of the Port of London authority has recommended that the port of Tilbury should be sold to International Transport Ltd.
I have considered carefully the recommendations of the three port authority boards. I am satisfied that in all three

cases the recommended bids meet the agreed objectives of sale. I have noted the provisions made in each case for managers and employees of the company to hold a substantial part of the equity share capital of the companies. I also consider the bids to be satisfactory in monetary terms.
I am therefore writing to the chairman of each of the three port authority boards giving my consent to the sale of their ports to the three bidders whom they have recommended, subject to the completion of satisfactory contracts of sale. I am delighted that today's announcement means that three more major British ports are now moving into the private sector and that a fourth intends to do so shortly.
I commend this statement to the House.

Mr. John Prescott: I am pleased that, at least on this occasion, the House has been treated to a statement rather than a repeat of the rather shabby deal that was associated with the sale of the Tees and Hartlepool port.
The Secretary of State should reconsider the remarks that he made when I left the Chamber. He is aware that when a statement is made on such complex matters it is necessary to read and consider it before one can be expected to make a response. It is the convention in the House for statements to be given to the Opposition by approximately 2 o'clock so that they can consider the details. If that is done, it avoids any discourtesy to the House that is caused by having to go out of the Chamber to read the statement in order to make a proper assessment of it. In view of that, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will withdraw his earlier remarks.
In view of the complex matters involved, we have been given insufficient time to make a proper judgment of the Government's assessment—[Interruption.] That is the reality. It is difficult to make a proper assessment of the matters involved.
Does the Secretary of State accept that great concern attended the sale of the Tees and Hartlepool port when the preference for the management-worker deal was ignored and the highest bid was refused? The integrity of that deal and the community interest were severely compromised.
Does the Secretary of State accept that the motivation behind and timing of his announcement has much to do with the coming election and tomorrow's Budget? No doubt the receipts from the sales will be used to finance the Government's taxation programmes. Does he accept that his announcement has nothing to do with transport policy or the national interest? In view of that, the Opposition reserve the right to review, where possible, these privatisation deals to ensure that the national interest and employees' interests have been properly taken into account. The Tees and Hartlepool sale failed to do that.
What is the estimated price to be paid for the deals that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has announced, and how much will be secured by the Treasury? When he considered the preference criteria for the management buy-out, were they in any way different from those in the Tees and Hartlepool deal? What protection has been secured for the employees, particularly with regard to their pension rights, from those who have purchased, or propose to purchase, the trust ports?
The Port of London police force, which is publicly accountable, will become a privatised force. What assurances have been given about the use of that privatised


force, which has considerable powers and responsibilities in connection with drugs, illegal immigration and contraband? What arrangements have been made with regard to the navigation powers for the Thames, particularly in the Port of London area, and how will they be financed under the scheme?

Mr. Rifkind: The House will have noted the hon. Gentleman's opening comments about his absence, and it will make its own judgment on that matter.

Mr. Prescott: Cheap little man.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should realise that the House would expect him, and all other hon. Members responsible for transport matters, to be present during transport questions.
The hon. Gentleman says that it is difficult to make a judgment about the content of my statement, but he has not found if difficult until now. He has opposed the privatisation of ports. Irrespective of whether they were acquired by management and employees, he and the Labour party opposed the legislation. Why does he now find it difficult to make a judgment? Perhaps it is a late sign of repentance.
The hon. Gentleman made a comparison with the Tees and Hartlepool privatisation, but on that occasion the bid by the managment-employee company was not the highest. It was not the bid recommended by the port authority. Other factors led to the recommendation that was made to the Secretary of State.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the timing of my statement. It has been made today because in the past few days we have received the recommendations from the port authorities. My task was simply to decide whether they complied fully with the objectives laid down in the Act, and I am satisfied that they do.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the price that has been agreed. For the Medway, it is £29.7 million, for the Clyde £26 million, and for Tilbury £32 million.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the position of the police in the Port of London authority. He will be aware that there are ample precedents in other ports already in the private sector for police serving those new port authority companies, and all the proper interests of the police have been taken fully into account.

Mr. Prescott: What about pensions?

Mr. Rifkind: Of course pensions have been covered. That is to be expected, given that management-employee bids succeeded in each case.
The most alarming aspect of the hon. Gentleman's remarks was that he said that if a Labour Government were to be elected they would review the privatisations. I am not sure what was the implicit threat in that remark. In the three companies to which I referred, the employees succeeded in taking over their company. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that a Labour Government would seek to reverse the decision that I have announced today? [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is nodding. Is he saying that a Labour Government would try to deny to employees in Tilbury, the Medway and the Clyde the opportunity to own the companies in which they work? I am sure that local opinion in each of those three communities will be appalled by the insensitivity of his response.

Mr. Roger Moate: I warmly congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), on their tremendous personal efforts to bring about these great advances in the port industry. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the port of Sheerness, in my constituency, which constitutes the bulk of the port of Medway, has transformed itself in the past 25 years from an ex-naval dockyard into one of the most profitable, enterprising and largest ports in the United Kingdom? The privatisation will allow the 650 employees to have an even greater stake in their futures and will attract new investment to our area.
Is he also aware that every advance in the ports industry has been opposed by the Labour party, and this privatisation has also been opposed by the Liberal Democrats? The suggestion by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) that an incoming Labour Government would review the proposals is utterly irresponsible. It introduces uncertainty into the matter, whereas we had hoped that total certainty would be established by today's statement.

Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend for his warm welcome, and I associate myself particularly with his tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), who played an enormous part, when piloting the Bill and at subsequent stages, in ensuring the successful progress of this policy.
My hon. Friend was also right to draw attention to the important benefits for his constituents and for those in the local community resulting from today's announcement.

Mr. Tony Worthington: Is it now possible to see details of the bids? I believe that in the case of the Clyde port authority an assurance was given that the value of the management-employee buy-out meant that 60 per cent. was controlled by management and employees. Would it be possible to discover who was represented by the other 40 per cent.? What undertakings have been given to safeguard such ports? What would happen if Clyde port authority decided to move to Greenock and to ignore the rest of the Clyde, as it has done in the past? What undertakings would then apply to ensure that the Clyde was dredged? Will the company give such assurances?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that 60 per cent. of the shareholding belongs to management and employees. It is for the company to say who the remaining shareholders may be. Clyde port authority has expressed itself fully satisfied that all the responsibilities that it has undertaken in the past will be carried out by the successor company. The objectives of each sale—they are slightly different in each case, depending on circumstances—have to be taken into account. Both I and the port authority are satisfied that the requirements will be fully met.

Mr. Tim Janman: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on today's excellent statement about the port of Tilbury. There will be great rejoicing in Tilbury this afternoon and tonight. He will be aware that the hundreds of men and women who work at the port and who have successfully turned it around since the abolition of the dock labour scheme go along fully with his decision;


and it was absolutely the right one, given all the hard work and dedication that they have put into the port in the past two years.
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, before the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) decided that this announcement would be reviewed if Labour won the election, at the end of last year, Labour's parliamentary candidate for Thurrock said that he wished there had been a November election and that Labour had won it so that the privatisation would have been stopped?

Mr. Rifkind: I am aware of that. The local Labour party in Tilbury appears to contain the only people in the area who are trying to frustrate the natural aspirations of the employees of Tilbury to own their own company. I suspect that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East will find that his aspirations cannot be realised—first, because he will not be elected, and, secondly, because legal procedures and the strength of local community feeling in each of these ports would unite to prevent any of his suggestions from coming into effect.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I welcome the statement, but will the Secretary of State explain what he means by
a substantial part of the equity share capital"?
In the case of Tees and Hartlepool, it meant only 5 per cent., which appeared to be a shambles. Are the figures in these cases substantial—and are they correct?

Mr. Rifkind: I have explained what a substantial share means: it was 60 per cent. in the case of Clyde, 51 per cent. in the case of Medway and 50·1 per cent. in the case of Tilbury. The hon. Gentleman will recall that, under the Act, management and employee shareholding was one of the objectives, not an obligation. Such shareholding would of course strengthen any bid put before the Secretary of State or before the authority. Sad to say, although the Tees and Hartlepool employees' bid met that requirement, it did not meet all the other objectives so that port authority felt unable to make that recommendation. I concurred in that judgment.

Mr. Robert Adley: Does not the attitude of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) clearly show that on this as on so many other issues the Labour party is torn between the interests of its trade union masters and those of the work force whom it purports to represent? Has my right hon. and learned Friend seen the recently published report of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, which produced the first profit for 29 years and restored traffic levels to what they were in the mid-1950s, and which attributed that almost entirely to the ending of the dock labour scheme—which the Government pursued through the House in the teeth of opposition from the Labour party? Is it not clear that our ports, as with so much else in this country, depend on the continuation of good, sound Conservative government to drag us into the future and to prevent us from being dragged into the past by the Labour party?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes. There has been a splendid renaissance of the ports since the repeal of the dock labour scheme. The Labour party's response is typical because it

always provides pig-headed opposition to any sensible reform, always in the face of the Government and the employers, and usually in the face of the employees as well.

Mr. Ian McCartney: The Secretary of State rather flippantly set aside the issue of pensions on the basis that there was a management-employee buy-out. The report on pensions published this morning seems to show that that is insufficient to protect pensioners. Will current pension arrangements be safeguarded and will the scheme continue, or will there be a new scheme under the new management? That is vital, because previous privatisations in the transport industry have led to losses of pensions, as in the case of British Rail Engineering Ltd., where the company was sold to Parkfield which eventually went bankrupt and the members lost their pensions after paying into the British Rail scheme for 25 to 30 years. Will the Secretary of State give a clear understanding on the issue of pensions and on the protection that is required for pensioners who are currently receiving benefits from the scheme and for future pensioners?

Mr. Rifkind: Both the legislation and the various schemes that have been proposed have had to take into account the proper and legitimate interests of pensioners. The hon. Gentleman can assume that the port authority would have been looking especially at that matter in the light of its responsibilities. The Government, as the body required to give final approval, would also wish to take that matter into account.

Mr. Michael Alison: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that, although his statement will be enthusiastically welcomed in practically every quarter, it is just possible that in certain circumstances it could be less welcome to the British coal industry, of which the Leicestershire coalfield and Selby, in particular, are important parts? I also represent the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart). Will my right hon. and learned Friend kindly tell those who are likely to be newly responsible for the ports featured in his statement that there is already much unused capacity at British ports for coal imports, and that they would be ill advised to seek to provide further capacity?

Mr. Rifkind: It is for each port, irrespective of ownership, to come to a judgment on whether there is likely to be a demand for its services which requires increased capacity. Clearly, it will be for individual ports to decide on that matter, and that would have been true irrespective of my statement. Obviously, matters of energy policy are not for me. My responsibility is to ensure that there is a framework in which the ports can prosper, and it is the ports' obligation to judge the demand for their services and to seek to provide capacity to meet it.

Dr. John Reid: Would the Secretary of State rethink his initial response to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)? When he demands that a decision should be made irrespective of whether the information is available or whether reflection has taken place, he is asking for a decision based on prejudice. Does he not think that, after 13 years of prejudiced and dogma-ridden decisions, the country would find it refreshing for a politician to say, "I want to see the facts before I make a decision"? On the facts of the Clyde port authority, the Minister said that


there would be 60 per cent. control by the management and work force. What percentage of that is nonmanagement control?

Mr. Rifkind: I think that I am entitled to be a little sceptical about the hon. Gentleman's remarks and those of his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). The idea that the Opposition regularly ask for time to reflect on Government announcements before giving their response so that the response can be fully informed, and not based on misunderstanding or be in danger of misrepresentation, is an endearing suggestion, but not one that the House has regularly identified. If it is to be the policy of the Opposition in the next Parliament to reflect on all Government announcements before responding, I heartily welcome their conversion.

Dame Peggy Fenner: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) in whose constituency is the largest part of the Medway port authority. I have the honour to serve the Medway constituency and my constituents will today be saying, "Thank you for a management-staff buy-out." We have always had good industrial relations in the Medway. Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that this sort of buy-out, which really involves staff, quite contrary to the prejudice about which the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) spoke, can only enhance the good industrial relations that we have always had in that port?

Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. Friend. A healthy bid from a management-employee organisation helps to create motivation, and that is always to be welcomed. It is sad that that kind of initiative does not always succeed, but wherever it does, and if it meets the overall requirements, it is proper for it to be welcomed in all quarters.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Is it Government policy eventually to privatise all trusts?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should consult the Ports Act 1991, which makes it clear that the Secretary of State has the power to require privatisation of the 13 largest ports, but only after two years have elapsed since the passage of the legislation. That time will not elapse until July next year. As it happens, once Forth completes its procedure, five of the 13 ports will already have used the voluntary procedure, and that includes four out of the five largest ports.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that I have constituents employed in both the port of Tilbury and the Medway port. They will welcome today's decision and see it not only as underwriting the future and putting it in their hands but as giving them the opportunity to take a personal stake in the ports.

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is rightly entitled to feel doubly delighted by the announcement.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Secretary of State clarify the answer that he gave the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) about the importation of coal? Was he saying that, although nearly 20 million tonnes of coal were imported last year and more is likely to be imported this year, he will allow these ports to import as much coal as they like, even though, when it comes to producing food, British Governments, of whatever colour,

have always taken the view that it makes sense not to import food but to produce as much as we can and subsidise it here? What he is saying is that as much coal can come into these ports as anybody wants without the Government interfering. Come on, let us hear exactly what the Secretary of State has to say.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I was making no comment on energy policy, which is a matter for others to comment on, if appropriate. I should have thought that it was entirely obvious what I was saying. The ports' responsibility is to respond to any legitimate request that they receive from any potential customer to handle products either for import or for export. Individual ports do not determine energy policy.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: At my first constituency surgery in 1983, two dockers from the Medway port came to see me and asked whether we could get rid of the dock labour scheme. We have come a long way since then, and the improvement in the ports in Kent has been staggering. Today's announcement carries them a stage further. Will my right hon. and learned Friend remember that, as the volume of traffic increases, the opportunity for a considerable amount of freight to move from road to rail will increase? Given that a new railway line is under consideration, will he make sure that the possibility of taking freight from road to rail is closely borne in mind?

Mr. Rifkind: We are keen to see a move from road to rail and also to sea transport. There may be opportunities for the ports to benefit from the improved freight facility grants that I announced some months ago. Interest in the grants is mostly centred on the opportunity for the railways, but there is also an opportunity for the ports if environmental benefits would result from freight that would normally be carried by road being carried by sea.

Mr. Derek Enright: Now that we know that the Secretary of State does not care about energy policy, and will pursue his policy no matter what, will he give the House an assurance that he will consult the Department of the Environment? During the passage of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Bill, it was made clear that no consideration had been given to the dreadful and deleterious effects on the local environment of the way in which its provisions would operate. For the future, therefore, will the Secretary of State lay down guidelines on the control of orimulsion and coal, when they are being stored, to prevent happening what has happened in the past in Liverpool?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy to comment on the energy implications of the policy. The environmental matters that arise from these decisions, and especially conservancy responsibilities, have been important factors, particularly in terms of the Medway where the port authority was more than satisfied with the determination of the new owners fully to carry out their responsibilities.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, if it had not been for the abolition of the dock labour scheme, his statement could not have been made? My constituents, who are a long way from the sea, would have been pleased to hear my right hon. and learned


Friend make his statement. They would have heard that yet again the Government are giving workers their rights, as they gave council tenants and parents their rights. Is it not significant that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the shadow Secretary of State, did not even mention the coal industry, showing how incompetent he is?

Mr. Rifkind: As always, my hon. Friend is entirely correct in his observations. Without the ending of the dock labour scheme it is conceivable that neither management nor employees would have been remotely interested in controlling the ports in which they work. There is an entirely new spirit in the ports. Those of us who have visited small ports since the ending of the dock labour scheme have been told constantly by management and by the representatives of trade unions that the spirit has changed entirely. There is an enormous amount of co-operation in ensuring that the ports can best meet the needs of local communities. The Opposition know that. There has not been the slightest suggestion from them that they would bring back the scheme. We know very well why that should be their view.

Mr. Quentin Davies: My constituency, like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens), is landlocked. However, my constituents are second to none in recognising that an efficient, innovative and dynamically managed set of ports is essential for economic growth. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, during the had old days of nationalisation and trade union monopoly, the registered ports were a costly and moribund incubus on the economy? They were incapable of competing either with private sector ports or, importantly, with Le Havre, Antwerp, Rotterdam, Hamburg and other ports on the continent.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that his announcement is excellent news? It constitutes a splendid new step in the revival of our ports. Does he agree with me also that nothing is more revealing in terms of the damage that Labour's industrial policy would do than the scarcely veiled threat of renationalisation that we heard from the Opposition Front Bench this afternoon?

Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. Friend, as do the managements and employees at the ports. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) is the last of the neanderthals.

Points of Order

Mr. Anthony Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to seek your help and advice on a matter of security at one of the outbuildings that Members use in Dean's yard. Over the 15 years that I have been here there have been some excellent attendants and security guards, and I and others could get in and out of the outbuildings without any problem. About two months ago, however, somebody approved a piece of enormous expenditure and brought in a most sophisticated security system. The only snag is that it clearly was not made in Britain because it does not work. One of the problems is that it is not possible to get into the place. Once one has gained entry, it is often not possible to get out. I am especially concerned because somebody has spent a great deal of money on the system.
Over the weekend—in the past it was possible to get in by using a key —I was unable to gain entry to Dean's yard because my pass was rejected as being unsuitable, although it is an up-to-date pass. In the circumstances, one has to go to a phone box—I did so on Sunday afternoon—to call the security people. To give them credit, they came at great speed. However, as they had been called out half a dozen times that day, the man who opened the door was becoming rather tired of going backwards and forwards opening and closing it.
My understanding is that there is a further problem today—the door will not close. Therefore, despite all the sophisticated paraphernalia, the security is worse than it was previously. In the four or five days before the House rises, perhaps you, Mr. Speaker, would authorise the Serjeant at Arms to get rid of the system so that we can go back to the good old days.

Mr. Speaker: I am aware that there has been some difficulty with that sophisticated entry and exit system. I shall ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate.

Dr. John Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising out of questions—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It cannot arise out of questions or it would not be a matter for me.

Dr. Reid: Quite. It is a point of order arising out of questions, not a question arising out of Question Time. Is it in order to ask whether some exception could be made for answers when Ministers are so shocked and taken ill—as the Secretary of State for Transport was today by my suggestion that decisions should be based on rationality rather than prejudice—that they forget to answer the second part of a question? Could not some mechanism be found to ensure that Ministers write to hon. Members to answer their questions—which in my case was what proportion of the 60 per cent. of the Clyde port authority was non-management rather than management?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot answer that question because I am not responsible for Ministers' answers. The hon. Gentleman should pursue the matter directly, possibly by letter, with the Secretary of State.

Mr. Simon Burns: On a genuine point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance? Has your office been approached today by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) with a view to his coming to the


House to make a personal statement to apologise for the way in which, over the past week or so, he has distorted Government figures—as highlighted by his embarrassment when he appeared on the Frost programme—on the number of people treated in the national health service?

Mr. Speaker: I did not see that programme. Thank goodness, I am not responsible for what goes on in television studios.

Mr. Paul Flynn: On a genuine point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance on the question of privilege—

Mr. Speaker: Order. In that case, the hon. Gentleman should write to me.

Mr. Flynn: I checked "Erskine May" and noted that the proper procedure is to write to you, Mr. Speaker. However, may I seek your guidance prior to doing so? My point relates to the publication of a document that quotes from our proceedings in this House and from the Order Paper. The document refers to some hon. Members and contains information that is wholly untrue. The document has been published by the Conservative party—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this something to do with a Select Committee report?

Mr. Flynn: It is to do with a document called "Who's Left?", published by the Conservative party—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a Select Committee report and not part of the proceedings of this House. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would ask his question of the Leader of the House. It is not a matter for me.

Sir Anthony Durant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) in his point of order. We are in some difficulty because it has come to my attention that there is a rumour going around that there might be a general election. If that takes place quite soon, there will be no opportunity for us to cross-examine the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on the figures that he has given to the public—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I, too, have heard that rumour, but some other method must be found to raise the issue. What goes on in a television studio is not a matter for me.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are anxious to ease you into your retirement in a kindly way, Mr. Speaker, so you would not expect a bogus point of order on which to finish the day. I support my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) in his point of order. Try not to tax yourself too hard this week, Mr. Speaker, as the Serjeant at Arms is on duty and has no doubt heard about the problems that we are encountering at Dean's yard. That will save you having to bring the matter to his attention.

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure that I understand the significance of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but I hope that he does not get locked in.

Orders of the Day — Friendly Societies Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Maples): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Friendly societies have a long and distinguished history of making mutual provision for their members and their relatives against loss of income through sickness or unemployment and for retirement. Most societies provide not only contractual benefits but discretionary benefits to members who find themselves in financial difficulties, and many societies are also engaged in more general benevolent activitis. The nature and range of friendly societies vary considerably, but all operate on the admirable principles of mutual self-help and the encouragement of thrift. They have played a particularly valuable role in providing protection and savings for people on modest incomes who might otherwise be unable to make provision for themselves.
Friendly societies have been recognised in statute for nearly 200 years, although their origins date back to at least the middle ages. The Bill before the House today is the most far-reaching legislation on friendly societies for over 100 years, since the Friendly Societies Act 1875. There has been amending legislation since, but the fundamental structure of the 1875 Act has survived until now, and the consolidated Friendly Societies Act 1974—the current legislation governing the activities of friendly societies—still bears a clear similarity to it.
Time has obviously moved on, as has the environment in which friendly societies operate. Since the late 1940s the state has provided many of the benefits for which friendly societies were originally formed and new financial products have become available. In recent years, the ability of societies to compete successfully with insurance companies and others has been increasingly hampered by the framework that governs them—particularly the limited range of business in which societies can engage. However, they are still significant financial institutions, with millions of members and assets of more than £5 billion, and they continue to perform an important function.
The Government—and, I believe, Members in all parts of the House—recognise that the values friendly societies represent are well worth protecting and fostering. The Bill's main purpose is to enable societies to develop and prosper in the modern world, while ensuring sound standards of investor protection.
The Government set out their proposals for the future of societies in a Green Paper, "Friendly Societies: A New Framework", published in January 1990, which was widely welcomed—not least by friendly societies themselves—and forms the basis of the legislation before the House today. We have, however, made various modifications to the proposals in the light of the comments that we have received. In particular, we sought wherever possible to meet the requests of the friendly societies for further refinements to the framework.
Since the publication of the Green Paper there has been an extensive consultation process. We consulted interested


parties on not only the draft instructions to parliamentary counsel for the preparation of the Bill but successive drafts of the Bill itself. The Bill has benefited greatly as a result, and I thank all those who took part, particularly the Friendly Societies Liaison Committee and representatives of the actuarial and accountancy professions. All their main concerns have been met, and the Bill therefore has the full endorsement of the friendly societies movement.
One of the Bill's most important provisions is to allow friendly societies to incorporate. That is an essential prerequisite for their being able to provide a wider range of financial and other services. For prudential reasons, European Community insurance legislation prohibits an institution providing long-term life or general insurance from engaging directly in other activities. It follows that such other activities must be conducted through separately managed and financed subsidiaries.
Friendly societies are currently unincorporated associations of individuals, and under the present law are effectively unable to own subsidiaries. The Bill therefore provides for societies to incorporate as a new category of friendly society, and to form and acquire subsidiaries. Although there will be no obligation—either legislative or otherwise—for existing friendly societies to incorporate, incorporation does offer advantages.
In particular, it offers societies the ability to own their assets directly rather than through trustees and to have legal personality for contractual and other purposes. We therefore hope that, even where they do not intend to take up the new powers provided by the Bill, societies will take the opportunity to incorporate. We have made special provision to preserve the character of societies with a federal structure, such as the Independent Order of Oddfellows and the Ancient Order of Foresters, if they choose to incorporate—but the decision on whether or not to incorporate will be for the members of each society.
Societies that incorporate will be able to establish subsidiaries or, together with other societies or other institutions, to establish the joint control over companies. Through those subsidiaries and jointly controlled bodies, they will be able to conduct a wide range of financial and other services. Those new activities are set out in schedule 7. They are mostly those put forward in the Green Paper, but, at the request of societies, we have added a number of additional activities.
The services that societies will be able to offer through subsidiaries include the establishment and management of unit trusts and personal equity plans; arranging for the provision of credit; carrying on long-term or general insurance business; the provision of insurance intermediary services; the administration of estates and the execution of trusts and wills; and the establishment and management of sheltered housing, residential homes for the elderly, hospitals and nursing homes. Those services can be provided not only for members of the society, but for the public at large.
All the activities listed in the Bill either relate closely to the existing businesses of friendly societies, or are natural areas into which they can diversify. However, the Bill provides for the list of activities conducted by subsidiaries and jointly-controlled bodies to be amended by secondary legislation. That means that, subject to the agreement of Parliament, additional services could be added as

appropriate in the future by statutory instrument, without the need for fresh primary legislation. That flexible approach will allow the powers of friendly societies to be adapted to changing market conditions, and will ensure that their ability to compete is not unjustifiably restricted by their legislative framework.
We are conscious, however, that the basic concept of a friendly society—existing to provide a service to its members and controlled by them—should not be compromised by the new powers. We would not want a society to diversify to the extent that its new activities became disproportionate to the traditional business of the society. The Bill therefore provides safeguards in that respect. The purposes of an incorporated friendly society must include the provision of traditional friendly society services to its members, and they are set out in an updated form in schedule 2.

Mr. Tim Smith: I have been looking at schedule 3, which deals with the procedure of incorporation. Would it be sufficient for a society's members to vote for incorporation by means of a simple majority, or will there be some higher hurdle, as there is in the case of building societies? If members do vote for incorporation, who will be the members of the society when it is incorporated? Who will be the shareholders?

Mr. Maples: There will not be shareholders. Although the society will then be an incorporated body, it will not be a Companies Act company; it will be incorporated specifically under the Bill. A friendly society will need to amend its rules to bring them into line with the requirements for incorporation that are made in the Bill. The resolutions required for such amendments will be those that are required by the friendly society's rules. I understand that, on the whole, rules can be amended by a simple majority, but I shall check that and confirm the position when I reply to the debate. It will be for the friendly society to amend its rules in accordance with its own procedures for amending rules—if that is not tautological.
There are powers to regulate the scale and nature of the activities of a society's subsidiaries if they are considerd to be unsuitable or disproportionate to the activities of the friendly society group as a whole. Societies will, as now, have the option of converting into companies if they wish to diversify further. That, I think, deals with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith): I was not talking about incorporation into a Companies Act company, but that further option is available to friendly societies now. If they find the legislation too constricting, either now or in the future, they can take such action; and, in such circumstances, they would be normal Companies Act companies with shareholders.
The second major element of the Bill is the establishment of a regulatory framework for friendly societies, in line with the best current standards. The prime responsibility for protecting the reputation of friendly societies for soundness will continue to rest with the committees of management of the societies themselves. The Bill tightens the requirements in that regard, including the requirement for at least two members of the committee of management, and the requirement that the committee be subject to re-election at regular intervals.
Clearly, however, we also need to strengthen and modernise the arrangements for the prudential supervision of societies as their business becomes less restricted, and to ensure that members of declining societies are protected appropriately. Although the problems that have arisen in relation to friendly societies in recent years have not been serious—indeed, the movement has a very good record—we must not neglect the need for their proper supervision. The supervisory system for friendly societies provided by the Bill therefore reflects and responds to the developments in regulation which have taken place elsewhere in the financial services sector.
Accordingly, under this legislation we propose to establish a friendly societies commission, to exercise and extend the functions at present carried on by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies. The new commission will include people with suitable experience outside the public service and the supervisory staff dealing with friendly societies will be strengthened. In parallel with that, the commission will have new powers, based on a requirement for all active friendly societies to be authorised.
The main power of the supervisor will rest in the granting or revocation of authorisation to carry on insurance or other contractual business, and in the imposition of conditions on it. A society carrying on such business without authorisation will be guilty of an offence. Authorisation is, of course, the standard procedure elsewhere in the financial services sector.
The Bill also sets out criteria of prudent management, with which all friendly societies—regardless of whether they require authorisation or are closed societies not conducting new business—will have to comply. The main criteria include the maintenance of any required solvency margin and of requisite accounting records and systems of control; direction and management by sufficient fit and proper persons; and conduct of the society's business with adequate professional skills, and in relation to the insurance business, so as to meet the reasonable expectations of members. In addition, those incorporated societies with subsidiaries will be required to ensure that they supervise the activities of those subsidiaries with due care and diligence.
If the commission considers that a society is failing to comply with the criteria of prudent management or if it thinks that action is needed to protect the interests of the members of a society for other reasons, it will be able to exercise a range of prudential powers. It can forbid a society to accept new members or withdraw or impose conditions on its authorisation. In addition, there will be a general power in relation to closed societies to direct a society to take such action as the commission considers appropriate. The commission will also be able to petition for the winding up of a society on a just and equitable ground, and to order a society to transfer its engagements.
The commission will have accompanying powers to obtain from societies and their subsidiaries the information necessary for its supervisory functions and to conduct inspections and investigations into societies.
The Bill therefore provides a flexible and wide-ranging regulatory structure to protect members' interests. That was the reason why we considered it appropriate to vest these powers in a commission, including independent members, rather than one person—the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies—as at present. However, in line with

building societies and banking legislation, the Bill also makes provision for an independent appeals procedure against the supervisor's decisions.
The commission's prudential powers are not the only safeguard for friendly society members. The Bill also requires all societies carrying on long-term life insurance business to appoint an actuary for the society. And all societies transacting insurance business will be required to have regular actuarial valuations of their liabilities, with checks taking place in intervening years.
In addition, new provisions relating to the preparation of the accounts of friendly societies and the duties of auditors are included in the Bill. The provisions reflect those in companies and building societies legislation. They require friendly societies to maintain proper accounting records and systems of control. Each year, the auditors of a society will have to make a report to the commission on whether the society has complied with the statutory requirements. The auditors are also empowered to furnish other information to the commission on the conduct of the activity of the society or the business of any subsidiaries.
Effective management, subject to appropriate supervision, is the best means of providing for the integrity and soundness of friendly societies. But to underpin all that the Bill makes fresh provision for investor protection. There is currently a voluntary scheme to protect friendly society members. However, although all the large societies, which account for the vast proportion of friendly society business, belong to the scheme, a number of the smaller societies have not joined it. It is accordingly desirable—as with banks, building societies, insurance companies and other financial services institutions—that there should be a statutory scheme, which is mandatory on any society which gives its members contractual rights.
Although it would have been possible to establish a statutory scheme just for friendly societies, it makes more sense to bring societies within the existing arrangements provided by the Policyholders Protection Act 1975, which covers the insurance industry. Accordingly the Bill provides for the amendment of that Act so that policyholders of friendly societies are brought within its scope on the same terms as those of insurance companies. Responsibility for the 1975 Act lies, of course, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and it is outwith the scope of the Friendly Societies Bill to make any more general amendments to that legislation.
We are removing the responsibilities of the Registry of Friendly Societies for hearing disputes between friendly societies and their members. Very few such disputes have been referred to the registry in recent years. In future, if a dispute cannot be settled under the rules of a society, it may be referred to the courts. We consider that the role of arbitrator under the disputes provisions does not sit easily with that of being supervisor of the institution which is one of the parties involved. However, although the commission will have no formal responsibilities in this area, it will continue the registry's role of using its good offices to resolve complaints. Friendly societies will also be encouraged to join one of the existing voluntary complaints schemes which cover insurance companies such as the insurance ombudsman bureau.
We are also taking the opportunity to rationalise the other disputes functions of the chief registrar. In particular, responsibility for determining disputes between the Department for National Savings and its investors will


be transferred to an independent adjudicator. Although the independence and objectivity of the registry in handling these disputes has not been called into question, we have been conscious that it is rather anomalous for one of the Chancellor's Departments to determine disputes involving another.
The Bill also makes fresh provision in relation to amalgamations, transfers of engagements by and to friendly societies and their conversion into companies. As I said, a number of declining societies have ceased to take on new business. If a society is in terminal decline or if a management void appears, the interests of its members may be better served by a transfer of its engagements to another society willing to accept them than by allowing the decline to continue or winding up the society.
The Bill therefore contains measures to facilitate voluntary transfers while at the same time making provision to protect the interests of the members of the friendly society making or accepting the transfer. In particular, it introduces a conformation procedure so that the commission can be satisfied that the procedures for a transfer have been properly carried out. Where a friendly society proposes to transfer any of its insurance business to another society required to maintain a margin of solvency, the commission must be provided with an actuary's report on the ability of the receiving society to maintain the requisite solvency margin. The commission will also have the power to direct a society to transfer its engagements to another friendly society or other suitable body if it considers that the society is unable to manage these satisfactorily and that a transfer would be in the best interests of the members. A conformation procedure is also provided where societies wish to amalgamate or where a society wants to convert into a company.
The Bill is a long and technical measure. That is inevitable as it is the first major overhaul of the law relating to friendly societies in more than a century. Besides providing new powers for societies, it thoroughly modernises their legislative framework and incorporates many of the provisions that have already been enacted for companies in the Companies and Insurance Companies Acts in recent years and for building societies in the 1986 Act.
The Bill gives friendly societies important new opportunities to respond to the needs of their members and to plan for the future. Our purpose has been to provide a framework in which each society can develop in the way that it judges best, while always retaining the essential characteristics on which the reputation of friendly societies has been based. I am sure that there will still be room for societies of all sorts—large and small, national, regional and local—as long as they continue to provide the services that the public want.
The Bill should not diminish but enhance the diversity of the friendly society movement. It gives those societies with the necessary will and ability the opportunity to move into new areas and to expand their services to their members. It also provides for a regulatory framework in line with the best current standards. Friendly societies have given outstanding services to the community for more than two centuries. This legislation will enable them to continue to do so for many years to come. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Paul Boateng: A Bill to update the outmoded and antiquated legislative framework of friendly societies is hardly likely to excite the passions of the House. It is surprising, therefore, that the Bill should have taken so long to come here.
There can seldom, if ever, have been a measure that has been so long awaited, so well trailed and so desperately needed by the group of organisations and people involved. Our regret is that it has been introduced so late in the day, at the eleventh hour. In their last moments, the Government have chosen to introduce a measure that it was open to them to introduce many months ago had they been so minded.
Indeed, as long ago as June 1989, during a debate on the Finance Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said that the Opposition would be only too willing to co-operate with the Government in identifying a time slot for such legislation and to give it a fair wind. My hon. Friend had been encouraged in saying that by the remarks of the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury during an Adjournment debate initiated—I want to give credit where credit is due—by no less a personage than the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs). He may remember it. At that time he had a slightly different role—a less distinguished role perhaps—but he was at least free to speak his mind. Now he is muted, at least on this topic.
However, on that occasion, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest moved the Adjournment debate and received due credit—his picture was in no less a journal than The Times of Saturday 8 April 1989. The hon. Gentleman remembers it well. It is not often that he features in The Times in any capacity. The headline under his picture—

Mrs. Llin Golding: He looked younger.

Mr. Boateng: Indeed, he did look younger—that is true. The headline was "Taken up the Cause". That was three years ago, which does not say much for the hon. Gentleman's persuasive powers. He is certainly older, but I am not sure that he is wiser. Three years later the measure has found its way to the House.
At the time, the then Economic Secretary—the current Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—said:
Friendly societies are an important part of our social and economic fabric."—[Official Report, 4 April 1989; Vol. 150, c. 170.]
He also said in the Finance Bill Committee:
I welcome their work and wish them to continue to operate."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 29 June 1989: c. 707.]
With such support, we might reasonably have believed that the Government would give the matter priority, but it was more than six months before they managed to arrange publication of the Green Paper entitled "Friendly Societies: A New Framework", to which the Economic Secretary referred. In view of that degree of diligence by the then Economic Secretary, it is no wonder that since he took over at the Department of Trade and Industry the Department has been renamed "The Department of Torpor and Indifference".
I hesitate to introduce a rancorous note into what should be a happy debate, as this is a non-controversial and inoffensive measure. However, for those of us who


follow these matters—there are not many of us, but we are nevertheless a dedicated band of observers—it is interesting to note that the process began with the then Economic Secretary, who is now Secretary of Trade and Industry, and continued to cover no less a personage than the Patronage Secretary. The post of Economic Secretary is interesting, because although it tends to paralyse those who hold it, at least in terms of friendly society legislation it does not subsequently impede their advance up the slippery pole. Sadly, the exception to that rule is the personage who now occupies the post of Economic Secretary. I fear, for his sake, that he does not have much further to go up the slippery pole and that he will shortly slip off it altogether.

Mr. Michael Morris: In the hon. Gentleman's historical review, will he remind us why, when legislation on friendly societies was consolidated in 1974 and the possibility of new legislation was raised, the then Labour Government chose to do nothing? I, too, do not want to bring a note of rancour into the debate, but I must point out that friendly societies seem to have suffered under all parties in the House.

Mr. Boateng: The Government have had 13 years in which to do something about friendly society legislation and they have chosen to do absolutely nothing. I am glad that the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) does not want to introduce a note of rancour into the proceedings. He will understand, therefore, why I do not respond directly to his point.

Mr. Tim Smith: Answer him.

Mr. Boateng: I will not be provoked by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith). He has been trying to provoke me for years and, in my experience, the best course with him is not to be provoked. We shall come to the history of the matter in due course—and there is an awful lot of history.
It is interesting that the Prime Minister, who was then in his incarnation as Chancellor of the Exchequer, was very free with his words of encouragement to the friendly society movement. He wrote:
The Government hopes the proposals in this Green Paper will provide the societies with firmer footing in the modern world and secure the future of the friendly societies into the next century.
The Economic Secretary, now the Patronage Secretary, echoed his master's voice, in no less a journal than The Daily Telegraph, with uncanny accuracy. He used the words:
secure the future of the friendly society movement into the next century".
If the proposals were allowed to continue at the rate at which the Government have dealt with them, it would be well into the next century before a Bill was passed. Mercifully, that will not happen, but not because the Bill has now been published and will be given a Second Reading today. With things as they are in the current political climate and with a general election just around the corner, this is a Second Reading into oblivion.

Mr. Irvine Patnick (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): Is it?

Mr. Boateng: The Whip, who should be silent bearing in mind his exalted position, asks, "Is it?" It would be interesting to explore that quesiton. The Bill, which has

been introduced in these quiet and uncluttered hours of the day, is perhaps being introduced in the light of circumstances about which, until the intervention of the one who should not have spoken, we knew nothing. In 72 hours' time, or sooner, we may be told that the Government will not, after all, go to the polls because to do so would interfere with the passage of the long-awaited Friendly Societies Bill. It may be the secret weapon and it may be what the nation has been waiting for as the excuse for the reason why the Prime Minister, in a state of frit, declines to announce on Wednesday, as expected, that he is to go to the polls.

Mr. Tim Smith: If the Bill is as important as the hon. Gentleman says it is, and if it is about to disappear into a black void, will he undertake that, if we have the misfortune to have a Labour Government, it will feature in their first Queen's Speech?

Mr. Boateng: The pigmentation of the void is neither here not there; I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have introduced such a note. If the Bill were to disappear—as I fear it will—into a void, in the fullness of time, it would come out of the void under a Labour Government and find itself on the statute book in something approaching its present form.
We have no quarrel with the content of the Bill. What we are concerned about—and what the friendly societies movement is concerned about—is the time that the Bill has taken to reach this place. It is an apt comment on the Government's priorities that, during this Session, they have preferred to introduce controversial, headline-grabbing legislation, which they hope may grub up a few votes in their hour of desperation—much of which they might have done well to abandon—than to introduce a solid proposal on the friendly societies which would have made a measurable contribution to the welfare of ordinary citizens and which could be secured with the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
What a pity it is that the Government did not take that course. What we have here is yet another example of their willingness to render all assistance to the citizens in whose name they produce charters and to do everything for them that they can—except actually to deliver anything that seriously might help them. The Government have still not decided whether they really want the Bill. We understand—the Minister will have his opportunity to deny it if it is to be denied—that Treasury officials and parliamentary counsel worked weekends in January to bring the Bill, with its 126 clauses and 22 schedules, to its published state.

Mr. Maples: indicated assent.

Mr. Boateng: The Economic Secretary nods his head in confirmation of that. Parliamentary counsel and Treasury officials are to be congratulated on having sacrificed their weekends in so noble a cause. But why, then, did the Bill lie on the shelf for most of February? Why was it not introduced earlier, to beat the dissolution? The Opposition would have done all that we possibly could to ensure that it completed its Committee stage: we would have been prepared to sit until late into the night if necessary to do that.

Mr. Ian McCartney: Is not the Bill one of the few measures in respect of which the Government will not have introduced a guillotine? They have guillotined every single piece of controversial legislation that has come


before the House. Every evening last week we had guillotined legislation which was controversial and which had no support from a large section of the House. In one case, legislation was guillotined through in a mere two hours. The present Bill has the support of the whole country, but the Government are not prepared to use the guillotine procedures to facilitate its passage before the calling of the general election.

Mr. Boateng: As usual, my hon. Friend speaks good sense.

Mr. Maples: I am sure that the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) will agree that, even by the standards observed by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) when he was Leader of the House, it would be unusual to guillotine a Bill before it had had its Second Reading.

Mr. Boateng: rose—

Mr. McCartney: The Minister is being somewhat flippant, given that the Leader of the House has already told us that, in his view, it should be our policy to timetable Bills on Second Reading. That procedure could be implemented for this Bill, and the Leader of the House could announce at the end of this debate—the Second Reading will be unopposed—that a timetable will be introduced to allow it to reach the statute book.

Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend makes a valid point which echoes a point that was made when the Leader of the House first started to impose guillotine motions. We asked why it was necessary to introduce a guillotine in relation to those measures, given that the Leader of the House had given the clearest and most unambiguous assurances that we would do all that we possibly could—

Mr. John Watts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Boateng: No. I have already given way more than I should have done—not least to the Economic Secretary, whose last intervention shows what happens when one shows a generous nature and exhibits a generous heart: one is taken advantage of by Conservative Members.
The need for the Bill is unquestioned. The Minister may recall that, back in 1987, the Friendly Societies Liaison Committee, to which he rightly paid tribute—the Opposition are happy to join him in that—argued that the friendly societies offered a unique combination of insurance business based on the principles of thrift and self-help, recognition of a responsibility to care for members going beyond contractual provision and a mutual constitution. The Opposition strongly support those qualities, especially as friendly societies are prepared to deal in smaller sums than conventional insurers and, hence, typically cater for the smaller saver.
We support the principles on which the friendly societies movement is based. We can understand why many people may feel a renewed need for the services that they offer. Undoubtedly, the societies are unlikely ever again to achieve the prominence that they occupied in the last century, but, as job security worsens and as the need for social services and welfare provision increases, it is vital that there should be vehicles to facilitate mutual support in

the community and that the regulatory regime under which they operate should permit them to offer their present and potential future customers an attractive service.
That is not the case at present, and that is why the friendly societies movement has suffered a severe contraction in its numerical strength of late. There were some 8·7 million members in 1945. That number has fallen to about 3 million. Meanwhile, the number of societies has also declined—from 2,740 in 1945 to well under 500 now. More than 100 of the existing societies have ceased to take new business.
In that context, it is hardly any wonder that there has been widespread concern in the industry about the Government's record. The societies speak for themselves when they say:
The lack of any sense of urgency on the part of the Government is causing severe frustration.
In the aftermath of the Government's last piece of procrastination, one commentator said:
New legislation is not a vote catcher, nor does it serve political dogma, as do PEPS. Quite simply, the Government doesn't care about friendly societies.
That is the voice of the friendly societies movement and of the many millions who support it. To be fair, widespread concern has also been expressed in the House. A number of hon. Members present today signed an early-day motion urging the Government to bring forward the present Bill.
The position has been made much worse by the Government's fiscal policy. In examining the history of the matter, we must consider the role of the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson). He is past history. Conservative Members would either seek to forget about him and his role or to paint him as the villain of the piece in the past 13 years of Conservative misrule. They are right to paint him as a villain, but he was not alone. Conservative Members were his accomplices in the same way that they have been the accomplices of his successor. The right hon. for Blaby had a pathological loathing—I use those words advisedly with no sense of exaggeration—

Mr. Anthony Coombs: On whose advice?

Mr. Boateng: I need no advice to come to that conclusion.
The right hon. Member for Blaby had a pathological loathing of the friendly society movement and, in 1984, he was largely responsible for the sharp drop in the number of new policies taken out with the societies. He cut the maximum tax-exempt monthly instalment from £20 to £9. What possible motive could he have had for that particular act of mean-mindedness? Every rise in the exemption limit since has had to be wrung out of the Treasury, which has been preoccupied either with creating tax shelters for the more affluent savers, who place deposits with banks or building societies, or pursuing its fantasy of popular capitalism through direct share ownership. That was one of the fetishes of the Conservative Government.

Mr. McCartney: I hope that my hon. Friend will point out that the Chancellor and his Cabinet colleagues did not create a level playing field for the friendly societies. In their privatisation of the pension industry, they made it far easier for private pension plans to operate in the market-place, but friendly societies were not allowed to offer the same range of services. That caused the loss of £6


billion from public funds. By encouraging people to come out of the state earnings-related pension scheme and into pension plans operated in the private sector, the Government have handed over £6 billion of public assets. In their attempt to privatise pensions they have undermined the capability of the friendly societies to offer a package of arrangements to potential pensioners.

Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, and he is right. Conservative Members have not hesitated to tip the level playing field, when it suits the vested interests that they represent.
The result of their attitude and of the malice of the right hon. Member for Blaby towards the friendly society movement was to create a strange anomaly. The societies are at a considerable disadvantage when their treatment is compared to that of the building societies and the banks. After all, what is a £200 tax exemption limit on a friendly society policy, if it is compared with £3,000 on a tax-exempt special savings account, or £6,000 on a personal equity plan—£9,000 if single company PEPs are included? Tax exemptions for friendly societies are as nothing when compared to those offered to the building societies and the banks.
The squeeze of the friendly societies has occurred against the background of the destabilisation of the financial services market and as a result of Government policy on deregulation. In the Green Paper on friendly societies the Prime Minister said:
The traditional values on which the friendly societies are based may seem to some people to be out of step with the current highly competitive financial services market.
The friendly societies are indeed out of step and long may they remain so. Their traditions run deeper than the uncontrolled competition of the 1980s and those traditions should be highly valued in the light of the problems which deregulation has caused.
I wonder whether, when the Prime Minister referred to the values of the friendly societies as being
to some people … out of step with the current highly competitive financial services market",
he was referring to a particular legislative restriction on friendly societies the removal of which would be welcomed by many hon. Members from all sides. I refer to friendly societies' inability to issue life policies to couples "living in sin". That is a Victorian restraint on friendly societies, which clearly has no place in the light of modern thinking.

Mrs. Golding: And modern practice.

Mr. Boateng: Yes, and modern practice.
I cannot help reflecting on what are, perhaps, the Prime Minister's ill-judged remarks in relation to the rake's progress and the issue of borrowing.

Mr. Chris Smith: They were reported in The Daily Telegraph on 21 February.

Mr. Boateng: That is the vehicle in which he shared his thoughts. His language was considerably more colourful than his words on any other subject that he cares to discuss. He may regret the use of the term rake's progress, because that is what we witnessed in the 1980s with the excesses that characterised that period.
To the ordinary man or woman, his or her most important assets are likely to be the home, a pension and perhaps a life assurance policy. In all those cases, he or she will depend on the integrity of financial institutions and the soundness of the regulatory regime under which they

operate. That is why we want to reflect upon the importance of the Bill and to examine it in more detail. If we consider the regulatory regime of the life assurance companies, many are competitors of the friendly societies. All too often, the life assurance companies are lax in terms of the methods of protection and the practices they adopt on the sale of life assurance policies. There has been grotesque over-selling. A Securities and Investments Board investigation into determinations published last year said that, on average, more than 30 per cent. of the long-term plans sold by the industry were terminated within two years. The situation is even worse if the sales made through tied agents are considered in isolation because the number of unit-linked insurance policies terminated within two years reaches an astonishing 45 per cent.

Mr. McCartney: I am a member of the Select Committee on Social Security and we have, today, finished our inquiry into pension funds. There is overwhelming evidence of front loading to the detriment of the purchaser of the policy. The industry refused to give the Committee the information that passes between the companies on the payments and commissions paid out in the first three years of a policy. It is a complete fiddle by the industry and those who are most affected are those who purchase a policy. Will my hon. Friend give a commitment that the Labour Government will seriously consider examining the way in which companies front load policies to the detriment of their purchasers.

Mr. Boateng: I assure my hon. Friend clearly and unequivocally that we shall look at that matter. A commitment to consider it seriously is not to be taken lightly. The difference between the Labour and Conservative parties on that issue is that we shall have an opportunity to do so, and the Minister should take that into account.

Mr. McCartney: I am concerned about the flippant manner with which the Minister deals with the issue. Millions of pounds worth of assets are involved, paid for by people who expect a deal out of those companies. The Minister flippantly implies that he sees no problems, whereas a Select Committee has just reported to the House that serious problems exist. We expect a better response than that from the Minister.

Mr. Boateng: We look forward to the Minister's response on that point when he sums up.
Insurance companies are still encouraged to bombard the public with unsolicited mail and to use fat commissions to secure tied agents.

Mr. Michael Morris: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman has no need to make false points of order. I would have given way to him.

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman declined to give way to me earlier.
Are the marketing practices of life assurance companies within the compass of the Bill? I understood that the Bill related to friendly societies, which are distinct from life assurance companies.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The Second Reading of a Bill of this nature is very wide. The


hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) is in order in making that point, but he should now return to dealing with the Bill.

Mr. Boateng: I am only too anxious to do so. I wish to draw a comparison between the Bill and the regulatory mechanisms that it contains and the current practices of life assurance companies and am compelled to point out the fat commissions that are used to secure tied agents such as banks and building societies, whose customers might reasonably expect to receive objective advice on matters such as life assurance.
No wonder that, as a result, the leader of the Financial Times of 24 January stated that the
quality of the product has never been as low as now, and the power of a well-organised sales force never as high.
Nor is the customer told the cost. Only last month, from figures submitted to the Department of Trade and Industry by the life assurance companies but never before published, were we able to identify the true price tag attached to their products. The cost of selling a policy in 1990 typically amounted to the whole of the first year's premium payments, but it could be much more. In one case it amounted to more than 250 per cent. of the first year's premiums, which is precisely the point that is made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield—

Mr. McCartney: Makerfield.

Mr. Boateng: The brief exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) gives me a distinct sense of deja vu. It shows how long it is since we have had the pleasure of contributing together to such a debate. I have learnt a lesson at my hon. Friend's hand once again.
The chief executive of the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation, Kit Jebens, said at the time—he was right—that
On policies, the consumer eventually pays the acquisition cost, sometimes indirectly.
It may therefore take a policy holder seven to 10 years on average just to get back the premiums that he or she has paid. Meanwhile, according to LAUTRO's figures, the sales agent receives on average £570 for a typical sale, such as a mortgage-related endowment policy with premiums of £50 a month. In a working year of 48 weeks, therefore, he has to make only a couple of sales a week to earn a salary of well in excess of £50,000 per annum. Yet nothing in the law obliges a life assurance company to reveal the cost of the product to the customer at the point of sale.
However, the Securities and Investments Board's review, to be published later this week, is simply a commitment to reveal an industry average, and even that will be expressed not in pounds sterling but as a reduction of percentage return over the life of a policy, if it runs to maturity. The practices of life assurance companies bear heavily on small savers. They show why a healthy friendly society movement based on self-help, mutuality and a sense of responsibility towards its members over and above its contractual obligations is so desperately needed and why we wish that the measure had been brought before the House earlier.
My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield raised a second matter relating to pension funds and their regulation. [Interruption.] I hear the Economic Secretary

moaning and groaning about the time that consideration of this matter has taken. That is a bit rich considering the time that the Government have taken to bring the matter before the House. We shall take as long as we think necessary to consider the matter and no amount of harassment, muttering or fulminating by Conservative Members, who should be silent but who are incapable of being so, will change the time that we take to deal with this important issue.
Despite warnings 10 years or more ago from the Wilson committee reviewing the functioning of financial markets and the Gower report into investor protection and the Occupational Pensions Board in 1982, the Government have done nothing to protect savings made through pension schemes from their hopelessly inadequate basis in trust law.
The all-party Social Security Committee, reporting today on the operation of pension funds, says that the fact that there have not been scandals of an equal dimension to that perpetrated on Maxwell-owned pension funds owes more to the decency of employers and the integrity of trustees than it does to trust law. The fact that those matters have come to light calls attention to the undue reliance on the decency of employers and the integrity of trustees. That decency and integrity have been a greater protection than existing trust law. When that decency and integrity break down, the consequences are grave, as they have been for those who put their trust in the Mirror Group pension fund.

Mr. Maples: The hon. Gentleman mentions the Select Committee's report published today and points out the dangers and inadequacies of trust legislation. Does the Select Committee come up with examples other than that of a socialist newspaper proprietor—a long-term supporter of the Labour party and ex-Labour Member of Parliament—robbing his pensioners of £400 million or £500 million?

Mr. Boateng: The Economic Secretary, even in his hour of need—we understand the problem that he faces in his constituency, although we do not sympathise with him —should not stoop so low as to suggest that the political philosophy espoused by the late proprietor of Mirror Group Newspapers had anything to do with his dishonesty. To suggest that there is a link between the two—bearing in mind the current funders of the Conservative party, such as Asil Nadir and the clutch of Greek and Hong Kong entrepreneurs to whom the Conservative party has been obliged to go to shore up its depleted electoral funds—is a bit rich.

Mr. McCartney: The Minister—[Interruption.] Protect me from these hordes, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman needs little protection from me.

Mr. McCartney: The Minister asked for other examples from the report—I can give him one. The Government sold Mr. Maxwell the privatised helicopter section of British Airways. Pensioners in that industry now face the loss of all their pensions—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are now straying some way from the Bill.

Mr. Boateng: The recommendations of that report should certainly be taken seriously—

Mr. McCartney: They were unanimous.

Mr. Boateng: Indeed they were.
On the role of the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation, the only part of the regulatory regime to have been significantly modified by the Government, the report has this to say:
The way IMRO has gone about carrying out its duties suggests to the Committee that this aspect of the system of self-regulation is—when the chips are down—little short of a tragicomedy. What IMRO appeared to be telling the Committee was that their part of the self-regulatory system works well providing all the participants are honest. In other words, the system works in those circumstances where there is little need for a regulatory system at all.
So the regulatory regime provides no protection for pension scheme members, and does not protect the manner in which assets are managed. Now that the public are beginning to appreciate how exposed their pension rights are to malpractice, the matter is giving rise to great concern throughout the country.
The consequences of deregulation are becoming all too clear in the context of a third matter, and here, too, the friendly societies movement shows the way. I refer to housing and owner occupancy. The Government want us to believe that this is one of their great triumphs, although that claim rings hollow now, with more than 150,000 households six months or more in arrears with their mortgages and with 80,000 homes repossessed last year. It is interesting to note that in 1980 fewer than 4,000 homes were repossessed—in the immediate aftermath of a Labour Government—yet after 12 years of Conservative rule, 80,000 are repossessed.
I draw the attention of the Minister to the plight of up to 100,000 pensioner households who owned their homes outright until they fell foul of unscrupulous financial advisers. The advisers who sold them investment bond-related home income plans, aided and abetted by the building societies, robbed these pensioners just as surely as if they had backed a van up their drives and removed all the furnishings and fittings of their homes. I hope that, even at this late stage of a Parliament, Treasury Ministers will take the plight of these people seriously.
The Government's only response so far has been to set up committees of regulators. The victims and the House are entitled to know from the Minister tonight whether he and his Treasury colleagues will do more. When will he put some political weight behind the victims' search for restitution? When will he make it his business to ensure that building societies do not repossess the homes of persons suffering from this fraud, at least until each case has been reviewed by a committee of regulators? Will he make it clear to the Building Societies Association that building societies are obliged to take account of the ability to repay of the people to whom they lend? This is a growing scandal and something must be done about it. Hitherto, there has been too much to-ing and fro-ing between the Treasury and the DTI about who should take responsibility for it. When will the Minister ask his DTI colleagues to do something about the sharks who sold these plans and who remain in business to this day?
The slack regulation of financial services has not only hit consumers; it has also been reflected in the employment prospects of those who work in the sector. Service sector growth was meant to be an engine room for the economy but that engine room is decidedly debilitated now—

Mr. McCartney: Knackered.

Mr. Boateng: I can understand my hon. Friend's frustration. He represents very well those of his constituents who work in the financial services sector. The many bank employees in Makerfield will be mightily relieved to know that my hon. Friend has their interests so closely at heart. The good folk of the building societies and banks of Makerfield will breathe a sigh of relief when they hear that my hon. Friend has made these remarks.
There has been a dramatic fall in business confidence throughout the sector. Not only building societies but banks and fund managers are beginning to display their lack of faith in the policies of this Government. About 37 per cent. of them are less confident than before; the negative balance is a massive 27 per cent. There is a widespread lack of consumer confidence. The uncertainty of business prospects is holding back authorisation of investment in all areas except information technology. The only bright feature is the steadiness of overseas demand, which is a tribute to the competitiveness of British financial services—hardly an argument in support of the Government's contention that our economic problems are part of a world-wide recession.
Employment in banking, finance and insurance has declined from a peak of 2·7 million in June 1990; it had fallen by 140,000 by September 1991, on the latest available figures. Under the Conservatives, 1992 can only bring more of the same. The signs are that losses will be even greater.
The clear conclusion is that no sector is safe from the recession. Previously secure jobs are being considered for the knife, and a wave of fear spreads through the country, especially in London and the south-east where jobs in the financial sector are most concentrated. For the first time, thousands of people must ask themselves whether they will still be in a job by the end of the year.
We welcome the Bill and the attention that it gives to friendly societies. Our three areas of concern may be summarised in the following way. First, the regulatory framework must be robust enough to cope with the problems of closed-down societies and possibly new ones, as well as allowing the smooth expansion of successful societies. The tax privileges accorded to friendly societies justify the new commission in closely supervising their activities. The commission should make it its business to ensure that each society operates as it should. We cannot afford the sort of laissez-faire approach which has so characterised other parts of the regulatory system. The commission must reassure itself that societies are at all times managed by people who are fit and proper to do the job. It must keep a particularly close watch on sales methods, especially as marketing is seen by many in the friendly societies movement as the key to future success.
LAUTRO rules on the training of sales staff mean that traditional methods of selling have already had to be abandoned. The societies undoubtedly face a mountainous challenge, given the head start of their competitors who built up networks of tied agencies in the 1980s. So far the friendly societies have not been seen as perpetrators of overselling or misrepresentation, but they must avoid any future temptation to cut corners.
Secondly, there must be suitably high barriers to demutualisation. Of course there are advantages in limited company status which gives access to outside capital. However, many other savings vehicles can fulfil that need. Only friendly societies recognise implicitly in their constitution that security for members cannot always be


achieved by pursuing profit maximisation. Mutual status permits social, philanthropic and welfare activities to be pursued as well. The pursuit of those activities is important, because they are valuable and must be preserved in the friendly societies movement. We do not want to see them lost in the marketplace. That is not popular with the Government, but it is a popular idea with the public as a whole and it has found its time. The friendly societies commission should permit mergers in the movement, in preference to take-overs by insurance companies, which is the last thing we want to see as a consequence of the Bill.
Thirdly, we require an appropriate compensation scheme because we have learnt from recent experience across the sector that sooner or later such a scheme is required. The present voluntary investor protection scheme is clearly unsatisfactory, and a move to join the policyholders' protection scheme with its more generous terms must be welcomed. It must be kept under review to ensure that it meets the needs of friendly society customers, even those whose savings are relatively small.
Legislation on friendly societies dates back to before the 19th century, and it was in 1793 that the movement was truly born. The movement dates back to Roman times and must be allowed to continue to prosper well into and beyond the 21st century.
The first friendly society in Roman times was known as the Hornblower society, a fact which will not have escaped the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. It was established by soldiers to provide for funeral expenses. We are about to witness the Government's funeral, mercifully the end of an era, and I suspect and hope that it will be the end of the Economic Secretary's career. No doubt he is a perfectly reasonable person.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: The hon. Gentleman is not a disinterested party.

Mr. Boateng: I am disinterested in the sense that I have no particular—I am not quite able to bring myself to say what I was about to say, but, while we are on the subject of Roman Britain, may I say that I have no specific or personal animus against the Economic Secretary. I regret that he is on that side of the House and the sooner that many Conservative Members are translated to the Opposition Benches or are out of the House altogether, the happier we shall all be and the more certain will be the future of friendly societies.

Mr. Michael Morris: I shall be brief. I support the Bill. Since I entered the House in February 1974, I have watched what has been happening to friendly societies. I certainly recognise that nothing moves swiftly in the House on any front.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) because, in the past couple of years, a great deal of time, patience and care have gone into the Green Paper. I pay tribute to the Economic Secretary who did so much of the groundwork in preparing the Bill. The size of the Bill is a credit to all those who were involved. A great deal of preparatory work by hon. Members from all parties and by the steering committee has gone into its production. I

am no expert in financial law, but it seems to me that, unlike many Bills, amendments to this one would be superfluous. I wish it a fair passage.
Society is changing. All hon. Members appreciate the role of preventive medicine and, in terms of social welfare, the role of the friendly society is to provide preventive medicine. The success of the societies is based on mutuality, the involvement of members and the societies' personal involvement with their members in terms of social and welfare need. That applies especially to death benefits, sickness and accident insurance.
The friendly societies add a much-needed dimension to our society. As we approach the general election, it is important to give a common message to the British people, which is that there is a future role for friendly societies. I hope and pray that the Bill will be given the green light by all hon. Members.

Mr. Ian McCartney: I shall be brief, mainly because my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) in his excellent speech spoke for me as well, so I do not want to repeat what he has said. Like the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) but probably for different historical reasons, I am a firm supporter of the Bill. It is a tragedy that it will be stillborn because we shall run out of time. From the wide expanse of the Back Benches, I should like to pose a question to Front-Bench spokesmen. Irrespective of the result of the general election, will they make a commitment to reintroduce the Bill at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. Boateng: Hear, hear.

Mr. McCartney: The friendly societies have spent eight years campaigning for the Bill and I hope that we shall not have to wait another eight years for its proposals to reappear. If we are serious about the development and promotion of the friendly society movement, and are committed to its long-term future, we should not be prepared to wait another eight years for legislation on its relationship to other financial institutions. Warm words of support for friendly societies in the House and in the marketplace are not enough because, as a result of inactivity, friendly societies have been undermined. There must not be further diminution of their activities, to the point where they could be confined to the dustbin of history.
I come from a mining community, and I am proud of it. I was brought up in that community which lived on five basic principles. They were: the church, the miners' welfare hall, the National Union of Mineworkers—before that the federation of mineworkers—the co-op and the friendly society. I do not put them in any particular order, but they formed the bedrock of the mining community into which I was born. My grandfather worked in it and my grandmother raised a family there, as did my parents. Therefore, friendly societies, and the concepts and principles of them, were an essential part of mining communities.
I may represent a mining community in England rather than a mining community in Scotland, but those concepts are as relevant today as they were then. The priorities may be different because of the social changes brought about by campaigning—for example, the creation of the national health service—but, as the hon. Member for


Northampton, South realises, friendly societies were set up to provide benefits in mining communities, such as sickness and accident benefits. Those who control the mining industry had no real interest in the protection and maintenance of the health and welfare of those in the mining communities.
My constituency is suffering not just from the closures in the mining industry but from structural unemployment and structural poverty. Therefore, I shall base my remarks on clause 10 and I hope that the Minister will comment on this important clause. I shall deal with friendly societies as credit unions. Those of us who represent, on both sides of the House, both small and large pockets of poverty realise that those who live in them are at risk from loan sharks and the activities of those who prey on people with low incomes or no incomes, or people who, because of the circumstances in which they find themselves, are unable to secure loans from recognised financial institutions. They rely on people, either within the community or outside it, who prey on them—loan sharks.
In my community, we have had serious difficulties with loan sharks. Three years ago, with a grant from the Department of the Environment, we developed a network of credit unions throughout the borough. Recently, the Department recognised it as one of the most successful stories of a self-help group involved in the community, handling its debt crises, evolving alternative ways to deal with debt and enabling people to save and to take out loans without the consequences that come about when racketeers prey on people desperate for additional financial resources.
Clause 10 is a general clause. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether friendly societies will be able to maintain and develop in communities such as those that I have described the credit unions and the work that they do. Credit unions are the one way, in areas where there is desperate poverty, to prevent people falling into the debt trap or not being able to save because they have such a small income. When breakdown takes place, criminals move in. Not only are extortionate rates of interest charged but physical violence and intimidation are used on those individuals unfortunate enough to get into the clutches of loan sharks.
Recently in my constituency a loan shark was taking from my constituents income support books and, in the case of those who were chronically sick and disabled, attendance allowance books. He was keeping them and cashing them until the loan had been paid off. He is now being sought by the police and the Department of Social Security on fraud charges, so I shall not name him, but that is an example of what can and does take place when poor people do not have an effective way to approach financial institutions to obtain financial advice and help, and loans and small saving schemes. Therefore, credit unions are a vital part of the development of the role of friendly societies. I would like the Minister to give a commitment that clause 10 is about developing a range of services, including, at a local level, activities such as credit unions.
I also ask the Minister to look into the historical system of bereavement benefits in mining communities. Because of the major changes in the past three decades, with the splitting up of mining communities and diversification, many friendly societies are run by an aging population with a small number of beneficiaries, spread not only throughout the coalfield in which they joined the scheme

but throughout Britain. In my area, there have been difficulties under current legislation. I do not say this to criticise the friendly society registrar—it is a complication of the rules which means that it is difficult to wind up these small and dying funds and to disburse what is left of them to those who still remain members of them.
Irrespective of the passage of the Bill, will the Minister look at this issue? I am prepared to provide the Government with additional information about this problem in the mining communities. Sometimes bereavement schemes are 50, 60 or even 70 years old and the people running them are elderly pensioners with no resources, and they have great problems in administration. Because of the rules, they also have difficulty in winding up the schemes and disbursing the small amounts of cash left in them.
It is ironic that this Bill, whose 126 clauses make it one of the largest Bills to be brought before the House during the five years that I have been here, has the unanimous support of the House. This is the only time I can remember a Bill this large having such support. Therefore, without making any party political or partisan points, I ask the Minister to ask the Leader of the House to organise discussions between both sides of the House to see whether there is some way in which the Bill can be granted a swift passage through the House. I can see no reason why not.
Irrespective of the battle that will take place in the country at the general election, the last memory of this House could be one of unity in passing a Bill that has the full support not just of the House but of the country. That would be a fair epitaph to what has been one of the most turbulent parliamentary Sessions. I ask this genuinely because I am certain that the Bill could be through the House and on to the statute book within 48 hours.

Mr. John Watts: The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) is to be commended at least for addressing his remarks to the substance of the Bill, in stark contrast to the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). We listened to a remarkable speech, which lasted for 55 minutes and seemed to take longer, and which included a 20 minute preamble in which he managed to make no reference to the content of the Bill. It is a tribute to his professional training as a barrister that he can speak for so long about nothing. In the remaining 35 minutes of his speech, while he took us into some interesting territory, its relevance to the contents of the Bill was, at best, minimal.
The hon. Gentleman professed not to understand the connection between the criminal activities of Mr. Maxwell and the political philosophy of the party that he supports. Let me enlighten the hon. Gentleman. It is at the centre of socialism to take money away from the people to whom it belongs and to spend it. Admittedly, it is normally done by Governments, not by individuals spending as they would wish, but none the less that is the connection between criminal activity and the underlying political philosophy.
The hon. Member for Makerfield introduced, in an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Brent, South that made his speech more interesting, the question of timetable motions. I deduced from the absence of substantial comment about the content of the Bill from the hon. Member for Brent, South that the Labour party does not oppose the Bill and does not wish to see it amended.


If that is so, I am puzzled by the reference to timetable motions. If the Bill is agreed to by all parties, even if we were to hear an announcement later this week of an event that would bring this Parliament to a fairly speedy end, it might be possible still, with the good will of the business managers on both sides of the House, for the Bill to pass on to the statute book.
I noted that when the hon. Member for Makerfield asked the hon. Member for Brent, South for an undertaking that, should there be a Labour Government after the election, they would bring forward a Bill on these lines at the earliest opportunity, although the hon. Member for Brent, South sat there "hear, hearing", he did not say yes. I do not know whether he would like to take the opportunity now of clarifying whether this Bill, which he has said is important, would be regarded as a high priority. I note that the hon. Gentleman still remains silent.

Mr. Boateng: I do not understand what the mystery is all about. I can give a clear, unequivocal assurance, as I already have, that the Bill will be brought forward in substantially unchanged form as soon as parliamentary time can be found for it. We can be certain that the Bill will be dealt with more expeditiously by a Labour Government. About that there can be no doubt. What greater assurance could the House have from so humble a personage as myself?

Mr. Watts: I think that that counts as an assurance from the hon. Gentleman. I understand his reluctance to commit himself. I recall that he found himself in deep water earlier in the year over assurances about relief for those who incurred losses at Lloyd's. Against that background, I understand his reluctance to step out of line with his bosses.
The House will know that I am the parliamentary adviser to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary referred—

Mr. McCartney: What happened to the building society? Has the hon. Gentleman given it up?

Mr. Watts: The hon. Gentleman is referring to an organisation called the Kenton and Middlesex building society, which is dormant. It has never traded and therefore I have no financial interest to declare in it.
My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary referred to the consultations that have been undertaken with accountancy bodies, which have been welcomed and valued. However, there are still three concerns that need to be resolved the first of which involves systems of internal control.
My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary said that there would be a requirement that friendly societies should have adequate systems of internal control, and in general that would be welcomed by professional accountants. There is, however, a problem of scale. For a friendly society to operate a system of control as envisaged in the Bill, it would need to have at least three accounting staff involved in internal accounting procedures. The threshold at which the society would be required to meet these requirements is income or assets of only £5,000. It would clearly not be a practical proposition for a small friendly society to

employ three accounting staff to operate an adequate system of internal control. Indeed, my institute doubts that even a society with a gross income of £100,000 a year would have the necessary resources to provide for that level of accounting staff, at least not without undue cost, which would be to the disbenefit of the members of the society.
My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary explained that the Bill contains provisions to enable amendment by means of delegated legislation. It may be appropriate for thresholds to be raised by making use of such powers once the Bill reaches the statute book, if there is not time for amendments to be made at an earlier stage.
Secondly, societies that carry on insurance business will be required to have a sure and fair opinion on their accounts. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will be aware that at present there is no agreement on how a true and fair requirement for companies conducting long-term business can be determined. As this is a problem for the life assurance industry generally, it will be a problem also for friendly societies conducting such business until such time as these matters are resolved. It seems likely that they will have to be resolved before the European Community's insurance accounts directive is implemented.
Thirdly, it seems that the definition of subsidiary in the Bill differs from that which is used in the Companies Act. There seems to be no good reason why the wheel should be reinvented. Why is there a different definition of subsidiary in this Bill from that which has been used in Companies Acts or in building society legislation?
I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary gives further consideration to these matters. If they are taken up, I think that they will enhance the Bill. They will make it more likely that friendly societies can continue to thrive.

Mr. Tim Smith: I welcome the Bill. Before I say anything about it, however, I wish to comment on one or two matters raised by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). First, the hon. Gentleman seems to be unaware that in respect of home income plans the Securities and Investments Board has made an announcement that will make it much simpler for people to complain. Instead of there being a range of regulators to whom complaints can be made, there will be a simple channel. In other words, the process has been simplified. I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman does not know about that. As I have said, the announcement has been made. It includes a clear description of the compensation arrangements. The process has been considerably improved.
The hon. Member for Brent, South referred to home repossessions and debt. Last week, I went to St. George's house, Windsor, to speak at a conference that was taking place over two or three days, at which were represented leading banks, building societies, other financial institutions, the Bank of England and the Director General of Fair Trading, who chaired the session which I attended. Also present were many people representing borrowers and others representing advice centres. Important discussions took place, yet there was nobody representing the Labour party. The organisers made a great effort to arrange for somebody from the Labour party to speak at the conference, but it seems that no one was available to


do so. That shows how much the Labour party cares about these issues. It was an important conference at which we were able to discuss the measures that the Government have taken to help those who have had problems with home repossession.
The hon. Member for Brent, South complained that the Government had delayed introducing the Bill. That is why I asked him to give a clear undertaking that the Bill would be reintroduced quickly if we had the misfortune to have a Labour Government. He has given no such undertaking. Instead, he has used the standard form of words about parliamentary time permitting.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that in 1973 a companies Bill before the House fell because of a general election. One of the Bill's key provisions was designed to make insider trading a criminal offence. For five years the then Labour Government did nothing about it. We had to wait for a Conservative Government to reintroduce the measure. It did so and insider trading was made a criminal offence.
Indeed, that Labour Government did nothing to improve things in the City. There was the short Companies Act 1976, which related solely to the books and accounts of companies. There was nothing else. Since then there has been a series of companies Acts, which have implemented European Community directives. We have had the Building Societies Act 1986, the Banking Act 1987, and the Financial Services Act 1986. A range of measures has improved regulation in the City.
In my view, there are now only two important omissions, of which the Bill is one. It will fill a gap. I recognise that there is a need for it and that is why I welcome its introduction. Pensions legislation is another gap. The hon. Member for Brent, South should recognise that my view was not widely held.
I have always believed trust law to be inadequate to monitor pensions. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Wilson Committee and the various reports of the Occupational Pensions Board. If he reads the OPB report of as late as 1988, the recommendations of which formed the basis of changes to occupational pensions legislation which appeared in the Social Security Act 1988, he will find that the OPB recommended—this was only four years ago—that there was no need to change the basis of the law on which pension scheme regulation is based. Those who say now that the law is inadequate are doing so entirely with the benefit of hindsight in the light of one major scandal in which a former Labour Member—a supporter of the Labour party—ran off with pension scheme money. Although it was a major incident, it was an extremely isolated one, fortunately.
I have only one minor concern about the Bill, and that is about cost. As my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) said, some of the societies are very small. He made an important point about internal control costs and the number of staff that might be needed to implement an adequate system.
I am concerned about the cost of regulation. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that all friendly societies —certainly those which do investment business—are already authorised under the Financial Services Act 1986 and are paying the costs of complying with that legislation. Now, we are told that the cost of this Bill will be £1 million a year, and a further levy will be made on friendly societies to meet that cost. It is important, especially for the small

societies, that there are not excessive regulatory costs, otherwise the costs will exceed the benefits to the customers of such societies.
I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that one detailed point has been put to me by the Association of British Insurers—the question of the Policyholders Protection Act 1975. If that Act is extended to friendly societies, not only are the benefits extended, but the costs. The ABI says that because of the definitions in the existing legislation large partnerships in Canada and the United States are making claims under the Act, for which insurance companies—and, if the Bill is passed, the friendly societies—will have to pay. I should be grateful for my hon. Friend's response to that particular concern.

Mr. Boateng: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker. This has been a good debate, in which enthusiasts and hon. Members committed to the progress of the Bill have taken part. I hope that the Economic Secretary will give a clear undertaking, along the lines that we have given, that in the event of there not being time —and I fancy that there will not—for the Bill to complete its stages in this Parliament, in the next Parliament, when the Government will be the Opposition, they will do all that they can to give the Bill, as reintroduced by a Labour Government in substantially the same form, a fair wind. If the Economic Secretary can give that assurance clearly and unequivocally tonight, I have no doubt that, at an early date, the Labour Government will find the opportunity in the parliamentary timetable, which we all seek, to get this important and long-overdue Bill on the statute book.

Mr. Maples: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I say that I am surprised that this humble and uncontroversial Bill should have given rise to 55 minutes of coloratura oratory from the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). At first, I felt that I should sympathise with him for having such a small audience, but I remembered from previous occasions that he does not really need an audience for his speeches—he enjoys listening to them himself.
I wish quickly to deal with the points raised in the debate. The hon. Gentleman welcomed the Bill and, by and large, agreed with its provisions. We welcome that. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) suggested that the Bill might have been guillotined. I hope that that will not prove necessary. In the unlikely event of our proceedings being foreshortened by a general election being called, this is one of the Bills that will have to be discussed between the usual channels. My understanding is that there is very little, if anything, between the parties. I hope that the usual channels will be able to ensure that the Bill becomes law.

Mr. McCartney: rose—

Mr. Maples: The hon. Gentleman spoke for a long time and I have dealt with his point.

Mr. McCartney: There is no need for the Minister to be tetchy; we are trying to be helpful. If, last week, the Government could introduce guillotine measures a week from the election being called, why cannot they now give


an assurance that they will introduce proposals to guarantee the Bill's passage through the House? That is all I am trying to say.

Mr. Maples: The hon. Gentleman invites me to repeat my joke, which was that even the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), when he was Leader of the House, did not guillotine a Bill before its Second Reading. I have no reason to suspect that such action would be necessary. There is little of controversy between us on the content of the Bill. If time permits, I am sure that we can get through the remaining stages quickly. If time does not permit, I hope that the usual channels can arrange matters so that the Bill becomes law.
The hon. Member for Brent, South criticised what he called the delay in introducing the Bill. He said that we could and should have introduced it earlier. We could not have done so. The Bill was presented to the House and printed within about two days of its drafting being completed. The final delay was just one week, when there were some points that needed clarification. The Green Paper was published in 1990 and there was an extensive period of consultation because it is a very long Bill. The result of all that consultation has been that not only the Opposition but the friendly societies are happy with the Bill. It is a long and complicated Bill which we believe is in as near a perfect form as we could get for a Bill this long. It should proceed through the House without amendment, so the delays in bringing it forward were worth while.
The hon. Gentleman also criticised us for reducing the friendly societies tax exempt limit. That begged some interesting questions. It may be another uncosted Labour party promise, but to what level should it be raised, and would that privilege also be extended to the life insurance companies? If not, and if it began to overlap their business, they would claim that friendly societies had an unfair advantage. If the hon. Gentleman considers the issue, I am sure that he will agree that the tax exempt limit must be set at about the bottom of the limit for life insurance companies if it is not to create an unfair competitive advantage for friendly societies. If it were to be much higher than that, it would cost a great deal of money. As we know, the Opposition are pretty cavalier with the way that they spend £1 billion here and £1 billion there. Perhaps £50 million or so spent on such a provision would not really matter.
The hon. Gentleman referred to home income schemes. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) effectively answered that point. Action has been taken by the appropriate self-regulatory organisations on the marketing of home income schemes. The Building Societies Commission has tightened the capital adequacy requirements relating to mortgage lending associated with equity withdrawal and action is being taken to help those unfortunate investors—and I have some in my constituency—in the schemes. Last week, the SIB announced a one-stop complaints procedure to facilitate compensation claims, providing a free alternative to legal action and so simplifying the process for elderly investors.
One substantial building society is effectively committed to making arrangements to ensure that those investors are not subject to repossession and, whatever happens, are able to stay in their homes. If the hon. Gentleman is aware of any facts or problems that contradict what I have said,

I hope that he will bring them to my attention. I shall then ensure that they are brought to the attention of those who have the power to deal with these matters.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) for welcoming the Bill. He was involved in its prehistory much longer than I have been involved with it. As he said, the friendly societies have looked forward to the Bill for a long time. We are grateful for the recognition that the Bill is in the form that the friendly societies can readily accept.
I extend the same gratitude to the hon. Member for Makerfield. What he told us about friendly societies being the bedrock of welfare in mining communities was interesting. He asked me a couple of specific questions. Clause 10 allows friendly societies to engage in social and benevolent activities. They can make grants and gifts to people but they cannot make loans. The Bill does not affect credit unions. Obviously, friendly societies cannot be deposit-takers. Credit unions are regulated by their own legislation. Friendly societies, except to the extent of making benevolent payments to members, will not be able to help in the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman described.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the few societies that are old and have few members for whom to provide bereavement benefits. Without further details, I cannot answer that point now. If he provides me with the details, I can give him the probable answers under the Bill. There is power for the commission to order the transfer of engagements from a friendly society which it feels cannot manage its own affairs properly to another friendly society. Those may be the sort of circumstances that the hon. Gentleman described. If there was a society of relatively few engagements, being run by a few elderly people who, perhaps, would prefer to have their responsibilities transferred, the commission could organise that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) raised three points. On the question of internal controls, the provisions will not necessarily require a particular number of staff, but they will require particular controls to be exerted. It certainly is not our intention to make life impossible for small friendly societies. However, it is a primary purpose and responsibility of the Government and of the Bill to ensure that the members of friendly societies are protected. A clear ingredient of all supervision of banks and building societies—and, in future, friendly societies—must be adequate systems of internal control. If societies are so small that they are not viable if they have to provide that control, they will have to transfer their engagements elsewhere. We hope very much that that will not force unnecessary changes.
We recognise the problem of arriving at a true and fair view of companies that engage in long-term insurance business, but that must be resolved in an insurance rather than a friendly society context.
Friendly society subsidiaries will be able to undertake only a limited range of activities, as set out in schedule 7. The subsidiaries of friendly societies will not themselves be able to have subsidiaries. They are in that respect different, but in other respects, and in the broader context, the Bill's provisions for subsidiaries correspond to those in the Companies Act 1989, and subsidiaries of friendly societies will often be Companies Acts companies.
I checked to ensure that I answered correctly the earlier point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for


Beaconsfield concerning the Association of British Insurers and the Policyholders Protection Act 1975. We are aware of the problem that in most circumstances that legislation extends only to individuals but that partnerships can involve large claims. That point must be resolved, but outside the context of friendly societies legislation.
My hon. Friend asked about the cost of regulation. It is a principle in other areas legislation that those who are subject to regulation pay for it. Friendly societies already pay under the 1974 Act, though they will have to pay for more extensive regulations under the Bill. We and the commission will try to ensure that the cost of regulation will not exceed the benefits. However, I believe that it is a correct principle that organisations that are members of regulatory bodies should pay for their own regulation.
I believe that I have dealt with all the points that were raised. I again commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Friendly Societies Bill, it is expedient to authorize—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenses incurred by the Friendly Societies Commission established by that Act which are attributable to that Act;
(b) any expenses incurred by the Treasury—

(i) for the purposes of tribunals established in pursuance of that Act to hear appeals against decisions of that Commission; or
(ii) for the purposes of any person appointed under that Act to determine disputes under the National Savings Banks Act 1971 or the National Debt Act 1972;

(c) any expenses incurred by the Chief Registrar of friendly societies which are attributable to any functions of his or of the central office under the Act;

(2) any increase attributable to that Act in the sunas so payable under any other enactment.—[Mr. Maples.]

WAYS AND MEANS

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Friendly Societies Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the levying of annual charges on friendly societies towards the expenses of the Friendly Societies Commission; and
(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Maples.]

New Parliamentary Building

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House approves the First Report from the Accommodation and Works Committee in respect of the New Parliamentary Building (Phase 2) (HC 269-I). — [Mr. Greg Knight.]

Mr. Ray Powell: I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) is not in Ills place, because over the years he has promised to provide me with an orange box when I speak at the Dispatch Box so that Government Members will be able to see me. I will not answer any comments about my height, because it is the quality that counts, not the size—whether outwards or inwards.
As Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee, I support the motion on the Order Paper in the name of the Leader of the House to approve the Committee's report on the sketch plans stage of the second phase of the new parliamentary building programme.I place on record my thanks to my colleagues on that Committee and to those who served on the former New Building Sub-Committee for their valuable contributions during the inquiries, and for their hard work within what was necessarily a tight timetable.
No doubt some members of the Committee will try to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, during this debate. I refer particularly to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), who is in his place, who served on both Committees and was a regular attender at both. He gave myself—the Chairman—and the staff in general tremendous support.
I express my appreciation and that of my colleagues for the work done on our behalf by the Clerk to the Committee, by Ken Brown, and by the architects, Michael Hopkins and John Pringle, and their staff; the officials in the Parliamentary Works Office and their secretariat; and the Property Services Agency project team.
I thank also the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), the Secretary of State for the Environment, for his personal interest in the project. I trust that that valuable support will continue and will be strengthened, with whatever influence can be brought to bear by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), to ensure that London Underground's preparation of the site will be completed as soon as possible.
The House has waited far too long for adequate, not luxurious, accommodation to enable the members of a modern Parliament to peform their many tasks and to serve their constituents efficiently. The days when right hon. and hon. Members had to be crowded four, five, or more to a room and in Corridors such as the Cloisters must be brought to an end as soon as possible. Right hon. and hon. Members have displayed patience, bordering on despair, and eventually complete indifference to their inadequate office accommodation—although for decades they legislated to ensure that staff everywhere were protected by shops, offices, and factories legislation. If it had applied to the House, Parliament would have been compelled to act sooner.
No. 1 Parliament street, which was opened by the Prince of Wales last year, helped to ease the problem, but we are far from solving it. When I presented a report to the House on that development, right hon. and hon. Members expressed amazement that agreement on it was reached as


long ago as 1963—28 years before its completion. That indicates clearly that not only the interest of right hon. and hon. Members but their total commitment to taking action is necessary to ensure that the latest plan is approved, and that the Committee's reasonable requests and recommendations—especially that which emphasises the need for construction to commence as soon as possible—are met.
If it had not been for the resolve since 1987 of the members of the New Building Sub-Committee, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) in particular was a most active participant, No. 1 Parliament street would not yet be open. The new and exciting proposals for right hon. and hon. Members and their staff and for other services will be realised only if right hon. and hon. Members take a constant and continuing interest.
I make this personal and perhaps controversial observation about accommodation. At every general election, some right hon. and hon. Members retire voluntarily, while others are forced to do so by the electorate. Consequently, there are over the years great changes in the individual membership of the House, whereas officers and staff remain in their posts until they retire. I have a high regard for their work, and for the efforts that they make on behalf of the House, but their continuing employment means that they are better placed to ensure adequate accommodation for themselves. I have no objection to that, provided that it does not supersede the rights of right hon. and hon. Members to be treated fairly in respect of whatever office accommodation may become available.
That aspect needs to be kept under close scrutiny over the next decade, while awaiting the completion of phase 2, if right hon. and hon. Members are to receive the priority that is their right to demand—even if that is at the expense of their secretaries or researchers. Constant supervision of the space audit will be an absolute necessity.
In view of the comments made to me during the phase 2 exhibition in Westminster Hall, I believe that it is absolutely necessary to place on record that neither the former New Building Sub-Committee nor the present Accommodation and Works Committee was in any way responsible for the delay. Phase 2 could be halfway to completion had the House not received proposals from London Underground for the proposed Jubilee line. Those proposals were placed before the Committee without a whisper of prior knowledge, when London Underground had been well aware of the phase 2 development. As hon. Members will know, the initial proposals even made the bizarre suggestion that Parliament square should be turned into a building site for five years or more.
Both Committees have spent many hours attempting to resolve differences. I firmly believe that it would be unreasonable to accept further delays, and that the Committee's successors in the new Parliament should be made fully aware of the problems of delay—unless Parliament is to be deprived of a long-overdue development in the years ahead.
The main purpose of this evening's debate is to approve the sketch-plan design for the building so that we can make further progress towards its completion. The report addresses other important issues about which the House should know before reaching a decision. First, however, let me deal with the design.
Discussions on the proposal for the present phase 2 site began as long ago as 1985, and were initially based on a staged development that retained a number of the listed buildings. In 1989, however, London Underground deposited what has become the London Underground Bill on which consideration of Lords amendments has been tabled today. The disruptive effects of the proposals were greeted with dismay by the former Services Committee, but in the event they have been turned to advantage, and have resulted in the exciting design that confronts us today.
Not only did the building have to meet the demanding specifications that were laid down for its use in the initial briefing, and to complement its prestigious neighbours; it had to be founded on the box that was being excavated for the new Westminster station, and to straddle with precision the District and Circle lines. Michael Hopkins has responded marvellously to that trio of challenges, and —as the report commented—has produced
an excellent design for a difficult, sensitive and internationally acclaimed site.
The Committee is therefore confident
that the building will be an impressive and worthy companion for Barry's Palace of Westminster and Norman Shaw's buildings; that it will complement the skyline of Westminster; and will serve Parliament well.
That, however, is not the end of the story. Given the constraints imposed on it, the phase 2 building cannot be expected to accommodate all the needs of the House; nor does it attempt to do so. It must be seen as only one part —albeit a significant part—of a parliamentary campus that will eventually require the refurbishment of the Norman Shaw buildings and Canon row to accommodate all the reasonable needs of the House.
In the short time available for consideration of the report, I cannot go into detail about the design; it is, in any case, displayed and described more than adequately in the sketch plan report, and in the exhibition that is currently to be seen in Westminster Hall. It is worth noting, however, that the building's design has drawn encouraging comments from the planning authority—Westminster council—and from English Heritage and the Royal Fine Art Commission. The evidence given by those authorities will be published in due course.
The building also meets all the major requirements of the initial brief. It is expected to yield in excess of 200 rooms for hon. Members, in a variety of configurations, and a similar number of work places for staff. It will provide accommodation for the Committees and for overseas offices, as well as badly needed extra Committee Rooms and conference space. It will also include within its walls—and in the exciting courtyard concept—a cafeteria, a dining room and a comprehensive range of support services.
The arcade of shops and shop units that is planned for the Bridge street frontage of the phase 1 and phase 2 buildings will be under the control of the House, and can therefore be expected to provide a range of high-quality and complementary services for hon. Members and for visitors to the area. It will be for the Committee's successors to ensure that that objective is realised.
Although it is fair to say that the design has been generally acclaimed, it is also fair to say that one point of contention exists. It relates to the chimneys. Some say that they are too tall; some say that they are too short; and some say that they should not be there at all. I have certain


reservations about them myself, but I know that they are intended to play an important part in the heating and cooling system.
I am somewhat reassured when I look across the river to county hall and see that that building has a large number of stone chimneys that do not offend the eye. Indeed, the whole building is pleasing, and would have made an ideal parliamentary annexe at a far lower cost—but that is another story, and I had better not embark on it now. The Committee has asked for a special presentation on the chimneys, and, if that is precluded, we shall recommend that our successors pursue the issue.
I mentioned earlier that the Committee's report addressed other issues. All those issues relate to the interrelationship between the House and London Underground in the construction of our respective projects. First, I must point out that one of the provisions of the London Underground Bill requires the House's approval of the design of the new building before the listed buildings on the site at 1 and 2 Bridge street can be demolished. Once that approval had been given and the Bill had received Royal Assent, London Underground would, in normal circumstances, be allowed to begin clearance of the site; but paragraphs 5, 45 and 60 of the Committee's report make a strong recommendation in that regard. We stated that we would not expect London Underground to proceed with demolition of the listed buildings and excavation of the site until the outstanding issues had been resolved. Of those, the most important is the date when the House can expect to get on site.
Let me explain the reason for our insistence. In the negotiations between the Committee's predecessor—which I also had the privilege of chairing—and London Underground, it was agreed that, in constructing the underground box for its new ticket hall, London Underground would incorporate the founding substructure for the phase 2 building and the decking from which the new building would rise.
In a number of paragraphs, the Committee's report reflects the anxiety that is felt about the long delays that have featured in work towards the completion of the parliamentary estate. Let me put that anxiety in context. The former New Building Sub-Committee had been considering the phase 2 design since 1985 and had published two reports on the subject before London Underground presented its proposals for Westminster station. That introduced further delays. Since then, five more reports—including the one that we are now considering—have been published, and more are to come.
Indeed, later this week the Committee will take further evidence from our architects, the Minister for Public Transport, London Underground and others on two specific issues: the vexed question of the time that will elapse before the House can gain access to the site--an issue addressed in paragraph 47 of the report—and the joint site management.
On the question of the timetable, the Services Committee's second report recommended, in early 1987, that by 1995 every hon. Member should have a room of his own if he wanted one. In its last report on phase 2 of the initial brief, the Committee looked confidently ahead to occupation of the building in the autumn of 1997. That projection was based on an assessment that access to the site would be provided between 18 and 24 months after the spring of 1992.
As hon. Members will note from our latest report, London Underground now estimates that the handover will take place 41 months after Royal Assent is given to the Bill. That will push back the earliest occupation date to the beginning of 1999. The Committee has agreed unanimously that that is unacceptable, and we have therefore commissioned experts, who have suggested that the delay should be reduced considerably. We expect London Underground not to commence work on the site until agreement has been reached on that point. That is one of the recommendations which the House is invited to approve.
The complexities of the site and the potential for conflicts of interest between the two work forces lead the Committee to support advice that the House and London Underground should seek to establish a joint management team as part of a plan to strengthen co-operation in areas of planning and construction where that would be mutually beneficial. We shall pursue that proposal this week with the Minister for Public Transport and London Underground. We, or our successors, will report further to the House in due course.
The report also highlights other areas of concern between London Underground and ourselves, which include the height at which the ground level of the building is to be set, ownership of the site, noise and vibration, ventilation shafts and access. Members will see that the Committee has given its qualified recognition of those problems and has recommended means by which solutions can be agreed. It is important that the House realises that some of the ventilation shafts will be situated within the parliamentary estate—in our own backyard, or rather in New Palace Yard and Canon row. We have satisfied ourselves that those locations are unavoidable and will not be disruptive. To ensure that they are as unobtrusive as possible, we shall monitor their development and have gained an assurance from the Royal Fine Art Commission that it will also examine the designs.
We have also made stipulations about access, noise and vibration and have received assurances, but we shall nevertheless monitor those matters. London Underground has undertaken to keep the subway and pavements open for Members who have to move between the Palace and Norman Shaw buildings.
On costs, the House will realise that the estimated all-inclusive cost is between £120 and £130 million. We have recommended that our successors are provided with detailed advice on that estimate in the near future and we are confident that they will wish to report further to the House on that subject. For that reason, it is important that the Accommodation and Works Committee and the other domestic Committees are set up as soon as possible after the House assembles in the next Parliament.
In conclusion, I am pleased to support the Committee's unanimous recommendation in our penultimate paragraph and have no hesitation in commending the sketch plan design to the House for approval. I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to give some assurance on the question of access to the site and on future finance.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I am delighted to be able to follow the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) who, in this context, is very much an hon. Friend and who has been Chairman of the


Accommodation and Works Committee since its inception and was Chairman of the New Building Sub-Committee. I have been delighted to serve on that Committee with him. I thank him for the kind things that he said and I warmly reciprocate them. He has been an extremely hard-working, indefatigable Chairman and we are all in his debt, as are hon. Members who are not present. It is a surprise to be debating this motion at this hour, as we expected the debate to be at 10 o'clock. I suspect that that is why many hon. Members who would have liked to take part are not here.
The Chairman of the Committee has outlined clearly and carefully what the report contains and has commended it unequivocally to the House. I endorse everything that he said. At the beginning of his speech he said that the House had waited too long for this building. How right he was. He also said that this building is about giving Members decent office accommodation, so that they can be of proper service to their constituents. Anyone who has served in the House for any length of time—I am approaching 22 years now—knows that the workload of a Member of Parliament has greatly increased during the past couple of years, regardless of what part of the country we represent, or of the side of the House on which we sit —[Interruption.]. I shall not give way to sedentary interventions or I shall make a long speech and some people do not wish me to do so.
Our workload has greatly increased. It is impossible for a Member for Parliament to give that service to his or her constituents and constituency unless given a private office where telephone calls can be made in privacy, letters can be dealt with properly and efficiently, and where the inevitable paraphernalia of the modern office can be properly stored. When I first came to the House I think that there were five photocopiers in the parliamentary precinct. Now, very few Members of Parliament do not have access to a fax machine and we find it increasingly necessary to have one in our offices. We are dealing with an increasingly sophisticated and—let us face it—demanding electorate. A great number of them write to us and they expect, and have a right to expect, a courteous and efficient service and a prompt reply. One cannot give that sort of service and fulfil the role of a Member of Parliament in the Chamber and on Committees—when you have been in the House for some time, as you must know, Madam Deputy Speaker, one finds oneself on numerous Committees—if one does not have decent office facilities.
Let no one put abroad the myth that we are engaging in a massive orgy of self-indulgence—nothing could be further from the truth. We are talking about providing adequate facilities for Members of Parliament, but providing them in a setting that befits Parliament. For the century and a half since it was built—the foundation stone for this building was laid in 1840, and it was virtually complete by 1860—this building has become a symbol throughout the world of parliamentary democracy and the decent things in democratic life. Wherever one travels abroad people talk about our clock tower. Generally they mistakenly call it Big Ben and they see it as a symbol. Throughout the war years it was a symbol of something proud, defiant and good. One only has to travel in eastern Europe today and talk to people in Czechoslovakia,

Romania or parts of the former Soviet Union, as I have done, to know that when they were depressed and suppressed they looked to this building and to what it stood for—[Interruption.] It would be good if the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) would cease his private conversation and behaved himself.
Throughout those years this building was seen as a symbol of hope and expectation. One of the reasons for that is that the building has great architectural merit and worth. We owe it to our contemporaries and to our successors to provide in the new parliamentary building —which will be the largest building in the parliamentary precinct to be erected since Barry's Palace—a building of equal architectural distinction, as far as that is possible.
The Committee was singularly fortunate in its choice of architect. Michael Hopkins's design will lead to the erection of one of the distinguished buildings of the 20th century. Some people will say that that is not saying very much, because I suspect that the 20th century will not go down as the greatest century in the history of architecture. However, Michael Hopkins has produced a building which will fulfil our needs and requirements and which is distinguished in its own right as a piece of architecture, above all because it is a well-mannered piece of architecture. It fits in well with its surroundings. It does not seek to challenge in an aggressive or unmannerly way, as the enormous bronze and glass box proposed in the early 1970s would have challenged and oppressed. By its use of stone, brick and other traditional material the building will fit in well with its surroundings and will provide a seemly and an efficient setting.
Therefore, it is important that we approve the report because we are determined to give Parliament, our successors and this country something worthy of the most important site in London, and let no one be in two minds that it is the most important site.
The hon. Member for Ogmore referred to our discussions with English Heritage, the Royal Fine Art Commission and, not least, Westminster city council. It is right that we should discuss the design in detail with those bodies as they have all expressed certain misgivings about it. Only this morning I received a letter from Westminster city council's chairman, who says that, in this sense, Parliament is sovereign and does not need planning permission. Therefore, a greater obligation is placed on us to ensure that the design is the product of detailed, careful thought and that we take into account the points that have been made by those bodies.
The hon. Member for Ogmore referred to the chimneys, for which some refinement and reassessment is needed. However, such small points can easily be met by an architect whom Lord St. John of Fawsley described in evidence as a genius. I believe that Mr. Hopkins is well up to meeting the challenge that we have presented to him.
Most important, the chairman of Westminster city council said:
Westminster is anxious that the site is not left undeveloped for any length of time, and that the new building is suitable for the key location it occupies.
The Chairman of the Committee referred to our not always easy relationship with London Underground. Let us now proceed with London Underground, determined to ensure that London has not only a parliamentary building of which it can be proud but the finest underground station in the country, that they are built simultaneously, that there is no attempt by either responsible body to delay or


frustrate the other, that we ensure that by the target date of 1997 passengers are alighting at a station that is the pride of the underground and that Members of Parliament are occupying a building which is worthy to sit side by side with Barry's and which gives hon. Members the facilities and services that they need if they are to serve their constituents.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I shall be extremely brief, but as the new boy on the Committee I want to make a short speech.
No one could deny that office accommodation is needed for Members and their staff. On 3 December, when I attended my first meeting of the New Building Sub-Committee and subsequent meetings, I soon realised what frustration previous members of the Committee must have felt for many years. I accept that the bodies that were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) should have been considered and debated, but we should not now delay any further.
Delays on the Jubilee line have been mentioned. The scheme has been delayed for two years and it is expected that it may be delayed for a further three years—in total, a five-year delay. I well recall our early meetings, at which the Chairman asked what other Parliament in the world would allow any organisation or body unnecessarily to delay or frustrate plans for parliamentary buildings. He suggested that only the mother of Parliaments would be prepared to do so.
I believe that there has been enough talking and consideration. The House should not tolerate any further delay, and that message should be made clear to London Underground and anybody else. Despite my short service on the Committee, I am satisfied that the proposal has been properly considered. People's views and interests have been taken into consideration, so I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading and that we shall have the building as soon as humanly possible.

Mr. Bob Cryer: When subjects such as this are discussed, strong pleas are made about the urgency of the matter and the vital nature of the proposal. Yet a few days ago we were discussing a report that, essentially, proposed to cut the hours of work of Members of Parliament. We are told that this new building is essential because of the additional burden that hon. Members are facing. I gave evidence to the Select Committee on Sittings of the House and pointed out that the supervision and scrutiny of statutory instruments was not adequate. That was swept to one side by the Committee, which proposed in its report a diminution in the facilities to deal with statutory instruments.
It is said that the new building is vital as hon. Members are terribly overworked and over-burdened.

Dame Jill Knight: For some time, the hon. Gentleman and I had an office in the same corridor. He will accept that for many hon. Members the question is not extra hours—I do not agree with some of the sittings motions that have been passed—but the pressure of working in an inadequate office. With the

greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman—and I do respect him—he is making the wrong point. The problem is that our offices are not sufficient for the job that we have to do.

Mr. Cryer: I accept that there is a shortage of office space. The situation is far from satisfactory, but I must look askance at a proposal costed at between £120 million and £130 million to remedy that deficiency. Many people outside will think that the housing crisis that engulfs this nation should be eradicated first. Let us get rid of cardboard city and elect a Government who give money to local authorities to reduce housing waiting lists and who build houses, flats and maisonnettes built for low rents that ordinary working people can afford rather than spend £120 million or £130 million on offices for Members of Parliament. We can struggle on a little longer, despite all the inadequacies and difficulties, in the knowledge that the money will be spent on people who are facing much greater difficulties and inadequacies who do not need a carpeted, panelled, lush air-conditioned office to satisfy their needs. All they want is a roof over their heads. There are 100,000 homeless people, yet we are talking about spending £120 million or £130 million on offices. I am not happy about that.
Last July, I raised with the Leader of the House the problems experienced by some visually handicapped children from a school in Bradford whom I brought here. There were no facilities for them to have a meal in the Palace of Westminster as hon. Members can take only three people into the cafeteria. Apparently my query has been dealt with by a labyrinthine series of Committees over month after month.
Why have not proposals been made to deal with such problems, because the reality is that that wonderful group of youngsters had to eat their meal on a park bench outside St. Stephen's entrance. It takes them six hours to make a round trip. If the report made provision for such facilities in the Palace of Westminster and not in a distant outbuilding, I should support it. Since I raised the issue last July, the Leader of the House has not said that there are to be any facilities for such people in the Palace. He has not said that there is to be a conversion of, for example, one of the private Dining Rooms which the commercial lobbying organisations hire so regularly. He has done nothing. Why not convert one of those Dining Rooms to provide facilities for the disabled?
I have a solution to the office problem. It is claimed that some Members of Parliament have an increased workload. I am a full-time Member of Parliament without any outside interests. I have a large volume of correspondence, but I do not mind, as this is a good job and I enjoy it. I look forward to returning to the House after the general election. However, some hon. Members are not full-time Members of Parliament, and we know who they are because they are mentioned in the Register of Members' Interests. Those who have directorships and parliamentary adviserships cannot be here all the time. If they were, they would be shortchanging the boards from which they get money.
A simple solution which would not cost £120 million to £130 million would be for those hon. Members with full-time or part-time outside directorships or parliamentary adviserships to go down to the Cloisters and for full-time Members of Parliament who have only their parliamentary salary for income to get the offices. Why should there be two classes of Member of Parliament, one


class existing on their parliamentary salaries and working full time to do a decent job for their constituents, and the other class which, as soon as it gets here, offers itself for hire? That is what it boils down to. They get as many parliamentary adviserships as they can, roll up a few directorships and double, treble and quadruple their parliamentary salaries. Let them have offices in the boardrooms where they are employed rather than call on the taxpayer for £120 million to £130 million for lush offices across the way.
Phase 2 is estimated to cost £120 million to £130 million. The report rightly states that we expect
our successors to he provided with detailed advice on these projected costs".
I bet they should. If this is anything like the Ministry of Defence, the costs will soar. They may start at about £120 million to £130 million but they could double in about five years. We should examine the project carefully before we give it the go ahead. It is not a sufficiently high priority.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and his colleagues on the Committee were given a task that they carried out and they have brought the report to Parliament. It is not their fault that the Government have created a housing crisis. Let us solve that crisis first and put builders back to work not on this prestige project but to give people shelter, to get rid of cardboard city and to reduce local authority waiting lists. When we have done that, we can consider this prestigious project.
Yes, this is the legislative centre of the United Kingdom although some Conservative hon. Members—and one or two of my colleagues—do not object to the shift of power to Brussels. I object, and I want to keep Parliament as the centre of legislative power in the United Kingdom. However, we must bear it in mind that many initiatives are now coming from the Common Market and some members of the Government do not seem keen to stop the flow of power from this place to the Common Market.
We must get our priorities sorted out before continuing such a project with enthusiasm. I hope that the Leader of the House will agree that the priorities that I have mentioned are more important than the glass palace proposed across the road.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I very much welcome the opportunity to reply to this important if brief debate, and I hope that the House—with the usual exception of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer)—will give its full and unambiguous backing to the design by Michael Hopkins & Partners for phase 2. We thank the company for all the work that it has done so far on the project.
We all agree with the hon. Member for Bradford, South about the priority of housing the groups of people to which he referred but that does not cut across what we are discussing. This project is to provide the right facilities for us so that we can provide a good service to our constituents. I remind him that there are many empty council houses which he could consider as a means of solving the problem that he mentioned.
There is no doubt that the whole House owes a considerable debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and to his Committee. As Chairman

of the New Building Sub-Committee and, during this Session, Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee, the hon. Gentleman has devoted an enormous amount of time and energy to ensuring—we are all in his debt—the successful completion of phase 1 of the new building programme and, more recently, the development of designs for the remainder of the Bridge street site. The design which is on display in Westminster Hall fully justifies the effort which the hon. Gentleman and his present and former Committee colleagues have put into this enterprise. It is a design for a major new public building which will stand up well to comparison with the Palace of Westminster. As my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) said, that is not just my personal view. It is a view endorsed by many independent authorities, including my right hon. and noble Friend, Lord St. John of Fawsley, the chairman of the Royal Fine Art Commission. Indeed, despite the minor reservations that are inevitable in respect of such a major project, the most remarkable feature of the Committee's inquiry has been the absence of any fundamental disagreement with the basic design concept endorsed by the Committee and incorporated in the achitects' plans. I have a minor reservation that I hesitate to express but, as it was mentioned earlier, I shall. It involves the chimneys, but it is a minor point and it can still be dealt with if others share my view.
The House is therefore grateful to the hon. Gentleman, to his Committee colleagues, to the Committee staff and to the architects. I am sure that I am not alone in looking forward with eager anticipation—indeed, all those who have spoken have done so with the exception of the hon. Member for Bradford, South—to the completion of the collegiate courtyard plan for the parliamentary estate, which will at last bring these disparate buildings together to form a single complex for the House, its Members and those who devote their working lives to Parliament.
The hon. Member for Ogmore mentioned the need to avoid further delays and I agree with him. I am sure that he will acknowledge that I could not have moved faster in asking the House to approve his Committee's report so soon after it was published. That shows where I stand, and I am sure that the House will support my view.
I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Ogmore for his remarks at the beginning of the debate about the role of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in supporting and moving forward the plans for the phase 2 building. I know that he has taken a very direct personal interest in the development of the plans, which we hope and believe will provide new buildings which will be worthy of the House and will represent all that is best in late twentieth century British architecture.
Important questions remain about how the project is to be financed, and how quickly it can be executed. As the report brings out and as the hon. Member for Ogmore said, the total estimated cost of the project at present is about £120 million or £130 million. The House will recall that, as a result of the Ibbs report, formal responsibility for the cost of all parliamentary works will pass on 1 April this year from the Department of the Environment to the House of Commons Commission. Although the Commission has in turn agreed to co-operate with the Treasury in the development of its longer-term works programme and to consult on the size of the annual estimates, it is not, and never has been, the intention of the Government to seek to interfere unduly with the House's


freedom to set its own budget for works. The Government's track record in this matter is good, and I can assure the House that it is not the Government's wish to seek to impose unreasonable delays on the progress of the new building project for purely financial reasons. I very much hope the same will be true of future Governments. The basis on which such matters are resolved between the House and the Treasury was recently outlined in the Government's response to the Ibbs report.
As the hon. Member for Ogmore made clear in his opening speech, the timetable for the commencement and completion of the phase 2 project is very much dependent on the progress made by London Underground in its own work to rebuild the Westminster underground station as part of the Jubilee line project.
The hon. Member for Ogmore has already referred at some length to the problems that the Committee has identified in the area and I do not propose to add tonight to what he has said. He has said that the Committee will take further evidence on the problems later in the week from London Underground and from my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport, who has been here throughout the debate. That will cover the problems of access to which the hon. Member for Ogmore referred.
The design before the House anticipates a day when the Leader of the House will no longer have to apologise to his colleagues for the accommodation and services that are made available to them. I agree with the hon. Member for Ogmore and with my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) about the inadequacies of the accommodation and facilities in this place for many hon. Members and for their staff which have existed for too long. I am sure that I echo the sentiments of my predecessors in the job in saying that the day when we have full accommodation and services will come not a moment too soon.
Although some important questions of timing and funding remain to be resolved, I wholeheartedly commend the Committee's report to the House and express the hope, on behalf of hon. Members of all parties, that a project on these lines can be proceeded with at an early date.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House approves the First Report from the Accommodation and Works Committee in respect of the New Parliamentary Building (Phase 2) (HC 291-I).

Pensions

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I beg to move,
That the draft Social Security (Class I Contributions—Contracted-out Percentage) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 27th February, he approved.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I understand that it will also be convenient to consider motion No. 6 on the Order Paper:
That the draft State Scheme Premiums (Actuarial Tables) Regulations 1992, which were laid before the House on 27th February, be approved.

Miss Widdecombe: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a statutory duty to review the contracted-out terms at least every five years. The Government Actuary's report and my right hon. Friend's response were laid with the statutory instruments and they reveal how technically complex the subject is. I propose to do my best to avoid burdening the House with too many technicalities, but rather to concentrate as far as possible on the broad principles. Widespread consultations took place on the contracted-out terms in 1991 following the preparation of memoranda by the Government Actuary. His formal report to the Secretary of State took into account comments that were received.
Since 1978, schemes have been able to contract out of the state earnings-related pension scheme, known as SERPS, if they guarantee to provide a pension, which is broadly equivalent to the state additional pension, known as "the guaranteed minimum pension". In return a reduction, commonly called "the rebate", is made to the national insurance contributions for contracted-out employments.
In 1988, we introduced changes which increased flexibility and choice in contracting-out arrangements for millions of people. The way was opened for money purchase schemes and personal pensions to contract out of SERPS. In addition, the changes gave greater scope for individuals to enhance their retirement provision with additional voluntary contributions.
Some 22,000 contracted-out money purchase schemes have since been established by employers and more than 6,000 salary-related pension schemes are attracting the current 2 per cent. incentive which is payable to new contracted-out schemes. In addition, 4·7 million people have taken out an appropriate personal pension. Increased choice has meant that more than 90 per cent. of the nearly 16 million members of occupational and personal pension' schemes have been contracted out.
The Government Actuary reports that the cost of providing guaranteed minimum pensions has been decreasing as the average rate of accrual of guaranteed minimum pensions declines. That is because those who were in the scheme from 1978 enjoyed a faster rate of accrual than those who joined later. For the five years from April 1988 to April 1993, the rebate is set at 5·8 per cent. In the consultation paper issued last autumn, the Government Actuary indicated his initial view that the appropriate rate for 1993 to 1998 would be 4·68 per cent. Following consultation, he has concluded that the range of uncertainties caused by the European Court of Justice judgment in the Barber case concerning equal treatment in occupational pension schemes makes it more sensible for


the rebate level to be based on the costs for the first three years of the period only. He assesses that figure as 4·77 per cent. including the contingency margin in his final recommendation. My right hon. Friend has accepted both his view and his recommended figure, subject only to rounding the figure to 4·8 per cent.
As my right hon. Friend made clear in his statement to the House on the pensions rebate review on 27 February, we wish to see salary-related contracted-out schemes continuing to flourish alongside personal pension and money purchase schemes. The amount of the rebate will assist in this aim. The 4·8 per cent. rebate will be shared so that employees receive 1·8 per cent. and employers 3 per cent. That reflects the current apportionment between employees and employers.
In some circumstances, contracted-out schemes may transfer their liabilities for guaranteed minimum pensions to the state scheme. This "buying back" is achieved by paying premiums. A state scheme premium is payable when responsibility for an individual's accrued guaranteed minimum pension right is transferred from a contracted-out pension scheme to SERPS.
Actuarial tables represent the average cost of providing guaranteed minimum pensions. The cost is adjusted to allow for investment yields at the time of the buy back by a device called the market level indicator. That is to prevent schemes being in difficulty in paying the premiums if there is a fall in the market level of their investments. The recommendations made by the Government Actuary will, in most cases, reduce the level of the state scheme premium payable. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has accepted the Government Actuary's recommendations for this relatively small, sensible, adjustment.
Although it is not part of the regulations, my right hon. Friend has announced a new age-related addition from April 1993 for personal pension holders aged 30 and over which is entirely relevant to the wider context of tonight's debate. Personal pensions have proved an outstanding success and are now well established. More than 4·7 million people have chosen to save for their retirement by contracting out of SERPS in that way, taking advantage of the choice, flexibility and portability that such pensions can provide. Many of them would not have had access to an occupational pension scheme and they include many who would not previously have planned ahead for retirement in that way. We regard that as a significant contribution to creating a strong pensions structure for the twenty-first century.
The flat-rate nature of the rebate has meant that the advantages of personal pensions have been greater for younger than for older people. The latest information available shows that more than 50 per cent. of all personal pension holders are aged under 30 and more than 80 per cent. under 40.

It being Seven o'clock, and there being private business set down by direction of THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 16 (Time for taking private business), further proceeding stood postponed.

London Underground Bill (By Order)

Lords amendments considered.

Lords amendment: In the preamble, page 2, line 21, leave out ("in addition to") and insert
("will contribute both to the").

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Thorne.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I understand that it may be for the convenience of the House to discuss all the Lords amendments together.

7 pm

Ms. Kate Hoey: I shall try hard to stick to the narrow amendments before us, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want specifically to refer to the amendments to clause 33, but, before doing so, I would draw to the attention of the House the continuing concern that exists in the Waterloo area not just about the Bill and its repercussions but about the way in which some of the proposals have been handled by London Underground.
After the House of Commons Committee had finished considering the Jubilee line extension Bill last year, London Underground made several significant changes to the proposals for the part of the Jubilee line extension that passes through the Waterloo area. Admittedly, the changes were located within the limits of deviation, but they were significant, and people in the area are extremely angry about them. We feel that we were grossly deceived by London Underground. Three main changes were proposed. First, the tunnels were to be moved underneath many of the houses in Roupell street, with the area of settlement including much of Whittlesey street and Theed street. Secondly, a completely new large ticket hall was proposed for Waterloo road, involving the permanent loss of many shops. The bus station proposed for Tenison way was the third major change, again involving the permanent loss of shops.
We believe that, in making those changes, London Underground has been guilty of unreasonable and unacceptable behaviour. The House was deceived, and information concerning the changes was withheld from 42 petitioners until it was too late for them to petition the House. A large number of Waterloo residents thus did not have the opportunity to petition to protect their interests. There was no environmental impact assessment study of the effects of the changes before the decision was made to promote them in the other place. Finally, promises that had been made and repeated many times at public and private meetings—that the tunnels would not be located under houses in Roupell street, which are of simple construction and, therefore, vulnerable—were broken. The community could not even petition the House on the matter.
A number of other consequences arose. The London Underground (No. 2) Bill was suddenly included within the London Underground Bill when it reached the House of Lords. That happened not after we had completed our proceedings on the first Bill but in the middle of our deliberations. Insufficient warning or explanations were given and, again, there was not time to inform the petitioners. The London Underground (No. 2) Bill dealt with the new underground station in The Cut, and had serious implications—although I think that the hon.


Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will agree that some of the problems have been dealt with satisfactorily.
I wish to make a formal complaint about the way in which people in Waterloo have been treated. That brings me to clause 33, which I consider to be of concern not only to Waterloo but to London generally. The original Bill makes it clear that there is a protection clause which does not allow work to be done or the spill site to be situated beside county hall. I remind hon. Members that that was the site that London Underground originally wished to use. It would not in any way have affected the green space of Jubilee gardens, and would have worked out a great deal less expensive, thus saving London Underground money. The London residuary body, which still controls county hall, refused to negotiate over the use of that site. Last week—more than a year after our original discussions —the Evening Standard carried the headline
County Hall—Crisis Looms for Cabinet".
The future of county hall is again very much in doubt. Only when there is a change of Government will county hall be secured for public use—perhaps joint use for educational purposes by the London School of Economics and others. At the moment, however, no planning permission exists for any development at county hall. The matter is being considered by the Court of Appeal this week and, if a decision is made, it is likely to go further. Because of the seriousness of the matter, the local authority is likely to seek leave to appeal to the House of Lords.
The building has been left empty for all this time. No developer wants to buy it. Yet the Departments of the Environment and of Transport have not found a way of getting together to make arrangements that would allow the beautiful and unique open space of Jubilee gardens to be left uncluttered during the building of the tunnel. The House should be concerned about that, because we shall lose the use of Jubilee gardens for five to seven years.
Clause 33(3) prevents London Underground from using the car park even though that would be cheaper and less disruptive. Clause 33(4) gives the LRB power to extend the period during which Jubilee gardens is used as a works site beyond the four and a half years specified in the Bill. Clause 33(6) gives the LRB power to decide the extent and specification of the reinstatement of Jubilee gardens. The amendments would provide for any person to whom the LRB transfers part of Jubilee gardens—including the car park—to assume powers given to the LRB. Anyone buying land to develop the Hungerford car park on one side—which is likely to be the South Bank Board—or county hall on the other, would be in a position to extend the use of Jubilee gardens as a work site without reference to the Government or to a local planning authority.
We see what is likely to happen in four and half or five years' time. We do not know what will have happened to county hall by then, but I hope that the works resulting from the London Underground Bill will be nearly finished. However, the policing of the arrangements to put the gardens back to their original state will be left between whoever has taken over responsibility for county hall and the South Bank Board. The board has plans to develop part of its area.
If we do not stop county hall falling into the hands of a private developer I do not know what plans will be drawn up. However, it may be in the interests of the owner

of the new buildings not to return Jubilee gardens to their original state. There is nothing in the Bill that would require the gardens to be returned to the state that the local authority and local people want. It may be in the interests of those who eventually control the LRB's functions to keep Jubilee gardens as a private extension to this development, if it is carried through. They could then say, "We are sorry, we do not want to put it back into public use: we want to extend the private gardens of county hall."
The amendment to clause 32 on how the gardens will be reinstated gives us no idea of who will finally take that decision. That leaves a great deal of a power in a body or in bodies which may not have the interests of local people at heart. It is ironic that, at a time when we are discussing the celebrations of the anniversary of the Queen's accession to the throne, the House is taking a decision to ruin a unique stretch of open space. Such a decision could have been avoided.
I attacked London Underground for the way in which it handled the problem of Tenison way and the shops. It has admitted that those problems were handled badly and that its intervention was late. On Jubilee gardens, I must say that London Underground has bent over backwards to help. It is not London Underground's fault that the LRB has been reactionary and had its head in the sand on this and other issues, because it is an unelected and undemocratic body. On Jubilee gardens in particular, the LRB has not tried to find a solution.
London Underground has said that, even at this stage, it does not need to sign the contract for the work site where the spoil will be placed until early June. Therefore, I hope that there will be a commitment from the next Labour Government to question whether we should ruin a unique site for the sake of a little give and take. I hope that we will have such a commitment if county hall is still in public hands by the time that a Labour Government are elected and if the contract has not been signed. I hope that the Labour Government will find a solution despite the protection clause that the House of Lords was unable to remove because of the precedent which means that the House of Lords cannot remove such protection clauses agreed by the House.
I know that the Minister will say that the London boroughs will benefit from the sale of county hall. I believe that even if the price were less, because the car park site could not be used for six years, the London boroughs would accept that price. They understand the uniqueness of Jubilee gardens. I saw the fuss and furore in the House about the fact that Westminster might be threatened in some way by the passage of the Bill. Every stop was pulled out to ensure that the green at Westminster was not affected. However, the House will allow a Bill to slip through that will lead to the complete disruption of people's lives in Waterloo.
Some people in Waterloo might accept a new underground, even if it were not the one that we would have preferred, because it might bring long-term benefit. It is possible to prevent disruption and the spoiling of Jubilee gardens. The next London marathon could be the last to finish in Jubilee gardens for probably six or seven years. I fear that, because of the way that the amendment is worded, there will be little chance of Jubilee gardens returning to its present state and being used as it is now.
7.15 pm
If the LRB gets away with selling county hall to a private developer, I do not believe that that developer will ever want to negotiate to ensure that Jubilee gardens remains as an open space, available for the people of London. It is unbelievable that we have been unable to sort out this matter. We have let down not just the people of London, but those who have worked so hard over the years to preserve Jubilee gardens as metropolitan open land and who see it as a unique riverside site. We are allowing that unique site to be ruined for at least seven years, if not for ever, just when London needs to make more use of such sites and river walkways.
London Underground has told me—it is important to put it on the record—that it will not sign the contract for the spoil site until June. It has said that it would be happy to move that site nearer to county hall if it were told that that was possible, which would thus save Jubilee gardens. It is extremely unfortunate that we, as legislators, cannot find a way to allow that to happen. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) will give a commitment that the next Labour Government will do everything that they can to resolve this problem.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: My hon. Friend has made a strong case for reconsidering this matter and I am sure that she will have been heard sympathetically. Given the proposed time scale, it is our expectation that we will form the next Government soon. I am delighted to assure my hon. Friend that we will consider the issue as she suggests to see whether a way can be found to ensure that Jubilee gardens is not spoilt as my hon. Friend anticipates that it will be as a result of the amendment.

Ms. Hoey: My hon. Friend speaks for many Londoners.
I am not trying to waste time because I feel that it is necessary to consider this important issue. The amendment has not helped in any way. I appreciate that the underground line may be needed, but I am sorry that it could not have been built without causing so much disruption and havoc to the lives of the people of Waterloo and without denying Londoners their use of a unique open space at Jubilee gardens.

Mr. Simon Hughes: In common with the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey), I shall address my remarks to the amendments. The hon. Lady and I have a joint interest because, although she represents a large part of Waterloo, I, too, represent part of it.
Clause 33 relates primarily to Waterloo and Jubilee gardens. In an earlier round of this protracted debate, I said that I am a trustee of the London Charitable Trust, which was set up to ensure that county hall stays in public ownership. That is still the trust's view and wish. The current proposals for the land around county hall, within which London Underground is obliged to work because of the land arrangements of the London residuary body, are not the most acceptable for the people of London. They are not what the people of Lambeth and Southwark, let alone those who look across the river from this side and those who use Jubilee gardens—the largest riverside open space in central London—would wish.
I, too, look forward to the day—not many weeks from now—when a majority in the House will favour London regional government based in county hall, a continuation of public ownership of county hall and protection for Jubilee gardens. If people want to read runes or tealeaves or otherwise interpret matters, they can take it from me —I suppose the phrase is, "they can take it from us"—that if we get past phase 1 of the Liberal Democrat pre-conditions for negotiation, which is an agreement on proportional representation and a fair Parliament, the negotiations that will follow about the programme for government will include county hall for London government. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall rightly said, that will be with or without the London School of Economics, which is subject to current discussions.
Three further matters in clauses 4 and 25 relate entirely to Southwark. The proposal contained in the Lords amendments to clause 4 would delete the corporation's power to carry out works and connected "conveniences", as they are so delicately called, to make and maintain a bus station in the London borough of Southwark on any part of the land shown as number 283 in the deposited plans. Provision for a bus station is part of a package deal and is the largest controversial area of the line's route, which goes around and underneath the Canada estate, close to the entrance of the Rotherhithe tunnel.
I shall not rehearse the strong arguments put before the Committee in this place and the House of Lords. Suffice it to say that the Committee here saw fit to order that a survey of Canada estate be undertaken. A betting person would bet that the House of Lords Committee would have organised work to the advantage of the tenants, but I am afraid that bets, even on odds-on favourites, do not always succeed and their lordships did not make an order along the lines requested by the tenants and residents of the Canada estate, which I supported on that Committee.
It was none the less clear that the Canada estate's foundations needed to be examined before people would feel secure with an underground line being built under the estate. I have been given an assurance that the work to examine the foundations has commenced and will be paid for by London Underground, and that the result will be publicly available. I take it as read that, if the survey of the foundations produce evidence to suggest that the foundations could not withstand the work directly under the estate, the alternative route proposed by residents, and originally by the council and me, will be adopted even if work on that part of the line has to be delayed accordingly.
A bizarre element of the debate was that it was discovered that the plans for the Canada estate, which was built in Greater London council days and transferred to the London borough of Southwark, had gone missing. So nobody knew whether the estate had raft or piled foundations. It is still a mystery. For those who live on the 22nd floor of a tower block, it is not inconsequential to know what foundations the block has and nobody would blame the tenants for wanting to know the answer. I am prepared to accept what I have been told—that it is better to carry out a survey than look for plans that may be inaccurate. That needs to be sorted out and the people on the Canada estate will not be happy until they know that their homes will be safe and secure, irrespective of the works done under the estate. We have fought and lost many battles and we may yet fight battles about the location of bus stations and cycle routes. The crucial matter is that the estate must be safe.
Money needs to be spent on the Canada estate. If the Government wish to be generous in the run-up to the general election and if Southwark cannot afford to pay for the renovation of the estate, I should be grateful if the Minister of State would send a message to the Minister for Housing and Planning, who knows about the issue, to produce the money to prepare the Canada estate. People would be extremely pleased. There may even be some Conservative votes in it, but I doubt whether they would make enough difference to change the result in Southwark in the coming election.
Two further issues relate to other buildings and sites. The amendments are minimal and I can do little other than try to prevent those amendments from going ahead. Clauses 21, 22 and 25 relate to powers in respect of buildings and roads, and clause 22 contains a list of land in schedule 7. The works consequential on the Jubilee line —the first which is an odd consequence, because it started off as a consequence of the works done at London bridge as a result of the London Underground (Safety Measures) Act 1991—include the building of the new entrance to London Bridge tube station and the work in Tooley street. They are listed in the schedule to the Bill.
In relation to the Borough high street entrance to London Bridge tube station, which is where the new ticket hall will be located, London Underground knows the position. The local community groups, the Cathedral area residents association, the North Southwark development group, the local councillors and I have been unhappy that an undertaking to consult fully about the station in a terrace of listed and significant buildings in the old Borough high street has not been in the spirit that we wished. I said that I wanted to confirm, by making the point on record today, that the design and building of the new station entrance should be the result of consultation. I am grateful to Mr. Weavin, from whom I received a letter today after a meeting on Friday. He says that he wants to call a meeting to include representatives from London Transport Property, the design management engineers and the community to discuss the matter. I agree that that is the right way forward and that the community must be involved.
The list in the schedule includes a specific site and relates back to clause 22 and the amendments. One remaining property is the subject of negotiation—Nos. 26 to 28A, Tooley street. During the whole saga, there have been a number of properties for which I have appeared to be a broker in the negotiations. It was once asserted that I might receive a meal from the new Guy's restaurant, but it was boarded up before I had a chance to receive more than a cup of coffee.
There is a restaurant in Tooley street near London bridge station called Archie's restaurant. The proprietor is a gentleman called Mr. Malik. As the negotiations were left on Friday, the implication was that London Underground would accept what is called total extinguishment—the business would close, so compensation would be paid on that basis, not on the earlier idea, which was based on the assumption that the premises would be partly affected. That is the only acceptable basis, and as long as discussions proceed on it I am satisfied that London Underground is being reasonable to this remaining contested property.
In the past hour I have had further discussions with London Underground. Those discussions have confirmed what I said about how matters stood on Friday. Nothing

less than that will be acceptable and, provided that future undertakings confirm that basis, I do not want to delay the House any more. Like the Minister and others, I want the Bill to become law by the end of this Session—it now looks as if it will—so that work on the Jubilee line can start and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman has had a good run; he must not start to turn this into a Second Reading debate.

Mr. Hughes: I was on my last sentence, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What has long been a neglected area of inner London in terms of public transport will soon be linked into the tube system. I look forward to that day and to work starting soon.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I will not answer the detailed points raised in this brief debate, because my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), representing London Underground, will do that if he catches your eye, M r. Deputy Speaker, but I should like to make one or two remarks on hon. Members' speeches.
Once again, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South for the great determination and patience with which he has conducted himself throughout this and all other stages of the Bill's progress through the House. During this long saga he has exhibited patience and courtesy, and the House owes him a debt of gratitude.
Both sides of the House look forward to the conclusion of this issue towards which we are moving, and I am pleased about that. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) said that she believed that London Underground had sought to be helpful about Jubilee gardens. I note the commitment made by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) to making this issue one of her policy priorities if she joins a Labour Government. I was interested to hear her commitment to reconsidering what may or may not be possible on the Jubilee gardens site in the light of what may or may not be done about county hall.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall referred to the decision to move the work site for tunnel spoil to the north end of Jubilee gardens. I appreciate the impact that that decision will have on public access to that pleasant and open space by the riverside. It is always unfortunate when enjoyment of public amenities has to be curtailed for limited periods. It is incumbent on us to ensure that there are good reasons for doing so and that there are no feasible alternatives. I am afraid that this is the position in this case. It was only to protect the vital interests of local chargepayers of London that the London residuary body successfully petitioned to have the original form of the Bill changed to move the site from the south to the north end of Jubilee gardens.
As the House will appreciate, ownership of county hall is vested in the residuary body. Under the Local Government Act 1985, that body has a clear statutory duty to dispose of county hall in such a way as to achieve the best possible return for the chargepayers of London. Its decision to petition to have the site moved was certainly not taken lightly. On the contrary, the residuary body rightly felt that it would be failing in its duty to the citizens of London had it not taken that course.

Ms. Hoey: Given that the protection provision was included, does the Minister think that it was fair or reasonable that no discussion or detailed consideration of it was permitted in the House of Lords Select Committee? It would have been easy to assess whether the LRB was right about the amount of money that it said it would lose if it allowed the site to be developed, but no one was allowed to challenge the figures in the House of Lords because of the protection provision, so we never heard the intricate details of the continually mentioned costs to the ratepayers of London. No one came up with any figures.

Mr. Freeman: Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South will comment on that. Procedures in the House of Lords are a matter for their lordships. I understand that the hon. Lady felt disadvantaged by them, but I regret that the other place is not accountable to this House, and I cannot answer satisfactorily why such discussion was not possible. I have one or two things to say, however, about Jubilee gardens which may be of relevance.
If the site had remained at the south end of the gardens immediately next to county hall, the residuary body's plans for the development of county hall—the plans on the basis of which it had been negotiating with potential purchasers—would have been largely undermined. That is because the south end of the gardens is needed for an underground car park, which would form a key and essential element of the LRB's plans for the development of the county hall complex. The LRB has put a price on the loss which a decision to move the site back to the south end would entail, in the claim put forward for compensation. In the event of that decision being adopted, the cost is put at between £50 million and £100 million. That would be a very high price for Londoners to have to pay for avoiding the use of the north end of Jubilee gardens while tunnelling work is in progress. Indeed, it is too high a price to ask them to pay for that purpose.
The hon. Lady asked what action my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment may take. That is certainly a matter for the Government, not for London Underground. The Select Committee in another place recommended that the Secretary of State for the Environment should use the powers conferred on him by the Local Government Act 1985 to direct the residuary body to agree that the work site should be moved back to the south end of the gardens. It will be clear from what I have already said that my right hon. Friend would believe that it was quite wrong to take such action. We have very clear legal advice to the effect that he would not have the power to give such a direction even if he believed it right to do so, because the powers of my right hon. Friend to give directions to the residuary body under the 1985 Act are clearly limited to directions intended to fulfil the purposes of that Act.
We are clearly advised that there is no way in which the transfer of the works site to the south end of the gardens could be regarded as fulfilling the purposes of the Act. It is, therefore, not possible for my right hon. Friend to give a direction to the residuary body on this matter without exposing himself to challenge, by way of judicial review, on the grounds that he was interfering outside his powers in action taken by the residuary body in furtherance of its statutory duty to obtain the best possible return for the chargepayers of London.
I still understand the comments by the hon. Member for Deptford about what the Opposition may consider right as to the future use of the building. She is perfectly within her rights to make such a speculative claim. I note what she said about reconsidering the south end of Jubilee gardens as a work site.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will agree that the Government have consistently honoured their commitment to ensure that London Underground was properly funded to construct the underground stations at Southwark and Bermondsey. I am also sure that he joins me in hoping that when those plans come to fruition the two stations will benefit the people of the inner suburbs of south-east London. I know that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to advance that point.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey spoke about the Canada estate. I will leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South to deal with that point on behalf of London Underground. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that in fulfilling its commitment London Underground ensured that a survey of the building's foundations was carried out.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I understand that it has been agreed that a survey shall be carried out. However, the works in connection with that have not been completed, although it is hoped that they will be completed in a few weeks.

Mr. Freeman: Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South can deal with that.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey asked me to refer to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment the state of public housing at Southwark. I am sure that my right hon. Friend and the Minister for Housing and Planning are aware of the issue.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who is not in his place, spoke in an earlier debate on the Bill about the issue of Canning Town. That issue has been resolved and is not therefore the subject of an amendment. The Canning Town interchange now provides for all three lines to have a single station interchange at north London. I am pleased that London Underground, British Rail and the docklands light railway came to such an agreement for the benefit of all Londoners and especially those who live in Newham.
This may be the last opportunity to pay tribute to Russell Black, the project director of the Jubilee line. He and his team have dealt with representations from the hon. Members for Vauxhall and for Southwark and Bermondsey and other hon. Members with courtesy, efficiency and dispatch. He and his colleagues will be pleased that Royal Assent is not too far away. The Government share the view that the Lords amendments should be accepted.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am sure that I speak for the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) when I echo the Minister's thanks for the courtesy and co-operation that we have had from all the officials. We look forward to that continuing over what may be a long time.

Ms. Hoey: I should also like to thank Russell Black, especially for his commitment, which I reiterate, that, should county hall not be owned by a developer before June, he will still be able to change the work site in order to protect Jubilee gardens.

Mr. Freeman: Accord is breaking out on all sides of the House. It overwhelms me. This may not be the last time that I am asked to speak in this Parliament on the Bill because I have agreed to appear before the Select Committee which seeks certain undertakings from London Underground and the Government about the proposed new parliamentary building in Bridge street.

Mr. Neil Thorne: Russell Black must be blushing because of the compliments paid to him, but they are well deserved.
The Lords amendments consist of adjustments agreed with petitioners, and improvements to the drafting and presentation of the Bill, including protective clauses for affected parties. No alterations of substance were included and no amendments were made which were not acceptable to the promoters.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) is rightly concerned about the effect that the Bill would have on her constituency. Her claim that there was gross deception and that the promoters were unreasonable was unfair, because it was not possible for them to deal with the matter as a whole until the results of the design investigation had been made available. Moreover, what was proposed was within the Bill's limits. Contrary to what the hon. Lady implied, they were carried out in ample time for petition to the House of Lords Committee. Petitioners did have time and, as far as I am aware, they certainly used it.

Ms. Hoey: The point I was making was that there was no opportunity for the House to consider fundamental changes that affected many extra people.

Mr. Thorne: I thank the hon. Lady for clarifying the matter. People had an opportunity to petition the House of Lords. It should be made clear that in such operations where design work is proceeding, it is important for matters to be dealt with in the normal fashion. It is not possible to close the shop immediately proposals reach this House. Work has to continue and there was adequate opportunity for petitioners to be heard.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall spoke about the line passing under some houses. That was not mentioned when the Bill was last before the House. The matter was put to the Lords Committee, which accepted that it would have little effect. The petitioners have the right to come back should the interference be such as to give rise to compensation. On the information given so far, I understand that that is unlikely to happen.
The hon. Lady spoke about the future use of county hall. The promoters must deal with the case as it exists, taking things as they are and not as they could or might be. Planning consent was obtained for the redevelopment of county hall from the Secretary of State on 5 September 1991. The proposals include the conversion of the river side buildings into a hotel, apartments and business centre, the demolition of remaining buildings in the county hall complex and their replacement with two new office buildings totalling 1 million sq ft. The proposals for the underground car park beneath Jubilee gardens is an integral part of the scheme. The borough of Lambeth appealed against the Secretary of State's decision to the High Court in January and the appeal is expected to reach the Court of Appeal later this year.
As I have said, the promoters have to deal with the matter as it exists, and that is why they would not want to expose themselves to the possibility of a substantial extra payment. It was right for LRT to take the course that it did.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey spoke about the Canada estate. I think that he said that there were no plans for that estate, which was built by the GLC. There is some uncertainty about whether the buildings have raft or pile foundations. The GLC and the borough of Southwark should have plans, because they both have a responsibility in that context. Some of the GLC schemes about which I was aware left much to be desired. On one occasion more than 2,000 doors were ordered in excess of requirements and they were promptly burnt. That was in about 1960, and I am sure that there have been other similar happenings. Those brand new doors were destroyed because of mismanagement. With that in mind, I am not surprised that the authority lost a few plans.
The issue is being properly investigated and I am told that LRT is funding the investigation into the foundations. It has had the best advice on the matter, and I believe that that advice was obtained at a high level, so there should not be any risk. Professor Burland, for London Underground, has said that the blocks are structurally sound, and that there is no risk from the railway works. He is an expert in these matters and can be relied on for good advice. Nevertheless, further investigations are continuing, but if remedial works are to be carried out, they would be the responsibility of the owner of the property, the London borough of Southwark.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I do not think that the GLC lost the plans, because it handed them over before its demise. On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I said that if there were structural defects in the foundations, there will be an issue over the liability of London Underground and the advisability of having that part of the route in exactly that alignment. That cannot only be a matter for Southwark because it relates directly to the plans. I am not asking the hon. Gentleman to accept responsibility on behalf of London Underground. I ask him only to confirm that there is a potential London Underground responsibility if that is what the foundation survey reveals. I hope that it does not, but until we see the survey, we cannot know the answer.

Mr. Thorne: The point that I was trying to make is that the construction took place in the London borough of Southwark. Therefore, as far as I am aware, that authority would also have responsibility for supervision of the work and must have had copies of the plans. It would appear that two authorities have lost their copies of the plans.

Mr. Hughes: Perhaps I should clarify the matter. The estate was built by the GLC, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recalls. When the GLC was wound up, the plans would have gone into the archives and we would have thought that a copy would have gone to Southwark. The borough cannot find its copy and nobody knows whether the copy is alive or dead.

Mr. Thorne: I should have thought that the London building inspectors would also have had plans, because they would have had responsibilities as well. There must also have been foundation plans to show drainage works.


It is surprising that all the plans that these bodies would have had have disappeared. That is unfortunate, and shows how careless some people can be. Clearly, LRT is doing the right thing in carrying out the investigation. The question of who is responsible will be a legal matter and I am sure that that will be pursued by the appropriate legal authorities of both the London borough of Southwark and the LRB. On the basis of what they find, they will decide whose the responsibility is, and that must be the right and proper way to do it.
The hon. Gentleman said that if a certain property were acquired, it should be subject to total extinguishment compensation. I am afraid that I have no knowledge of that. I have been trying to find out the details, but have not managed to do so. If the hon. Gentleman can find addresses, I will make sure that that is investigated and that a letter is written to him on that issue. It is clear that that should be properly looked after. We cannot have people suffering unduly because they are held in limbo.
The promoters respectfully request that the Lords amendments to the Bill be agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) wishes to divide the House on the amendment to clause 33.

Ms. Hoey: There is probably no point, at this stage. I have made my views clear and, as the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) said, London Underground is dealing with the matter. I hope that, in about four weeks' time, the situation will be different, so I will not push the amendment to a vote.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (LEWISHAM, etc.) (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Bill read a Second time and committed

Pensions

Postponed proceeding resumed.

Miss Widdecombe: As I was saying before seven o'clock, our aim is to maintain the momentum of our personal pensions policy and we expect to see a continuing take-up among young people. However, it is important that the structure of the rebate should not act as a disincentive to those who wish to retain their personal pension throughout their working life. Perhaps it is worth pointing out that if the Labour party were ever in a position to do so, and were able to carry out its oft-stated threat that it would abolish the incentives for personal pensions, some 4·7 million putative pensioners, most of them of modest salaries up to about £9,700, and their families would undoubtedly find their pensions much reduced. That should be clearly understood.
We have announced that we would be consulting the pensions industry and other interested parties on the implications of equal treatment for the current arrangements for contracting out following the Barber judgment. Hon. and right hon. Members will recall that this judgment was given by the European Court of Justice in May 1990. The judgment held that occupational pensions are pay. In consequence, benefits from occupational schemes have to be equal as between men and women.
Consultations are under way, and it is clear that changes will be needed to the basis on which pension schemes can be contracted out of SERPS. In considering what those changes should be, we intend now to give particular consideration to the scope for moving from flat-rate rebates to rebates related to age, at least for personal pensions and possibly also for other contracted-out schemes. Decisions on how to achieve equality in state pension age, on which we issued a discussion paper in December, will also have an important bearing on the many complex and detailed issues which will need to be resolved.
The new age-related addition of 1 per cent. that will be payable from April 1993 will mean that the vast majority of current personal pension holders are likely to find that it is in their interests to maintain their personal pensions. We intend to bring forward the necessary legislation in the new Parliament.
I hope that I have demonstrated to the House how we have continued to safeguard the interests of those people who are contracted out through the rebate and the buy-back terms. Hon. Members will see, I think, not only how complex is this subject, but how these two statutory instruments fit in to the Government's overall pension policy, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Graham Allen: I apologise to the Minister for my delayed appearance.

Miss Widdecombe: It is nice to see the hon. Gentleman now.

Mr. Allen: The business took me by surprise. I thought that the debate would resume at 10 o'clock. It has, of course, started rather earlier.
It is appropriate that Conservative control of social security is ending as it began, with a small, sly and squalid act of redistribution from the have nots to the haves. Over


the past 13 years we have experienced one of the most massive redistribution exercises undertaken by any Government. I am sad to say that redistribution has all been in the wrong direction—to those who have relatively high incomes and, often, away from those who have quite small incomes.
The average family now has a higher tax burden than it had in 1979. Somebody earning £70,000 per year is now benefiting from income tax cuts to the tune of about £700 a week. Those on the highest incomes are enjoying enormous benefits.
We are dealing with a transparent and perhaps pitiful little bribe. From those who quibble about the little extra money that is required to assist the disabled, the unemployed, the poverty-stricken and the state pensioner, we see their final act of hypocrisy: the Government are using £175 million to sweeten personal pension holders.

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman is talking about personal pension holders in the same breath as he talks about the haves. Will he confirm that most personal pension holders are on modest incomes of, on average, about £9,700?

Mr. Allen: I am sure that that is so. I shall have to ask the Department's private office to write to the hon. Lady in four of five weeks time to confirm that.
The bribe will not work because many of those who were lured into private pension schemes are now faced with the other fruits of the economic miracle, which was trumpeted so loudly only a few weeks ago. Many of these people are now behind with their mortgage repayments. They face the possibility of their homes being repossessed. These people live perhaps in daily fear that their job may not continue to be available to them. The insecurity that is brought about by the possibility of redundancy looms over many. Perhaps they work in recession-hit businesses that stare closure in the face.
Such people may have learnt the bitter lesson of experience. There was no such thing as a free lunch and there was and is no such thing as a freebie pension. Somebody somewhere has to pay the price for these give-aways. No one on the Opposition Benches and no one in the next Labour Government is or will be opposed to private pensions. Those who wish to take out a private pension will always be free to do so. Our objection is that the state pensioner and the ordinary taxpayer subsidise private pensions from their and our pension funds. They are standing on our two feet and not their own. This measure is another straightforward transfusion from our national insurance fund to the private pension companies.
Pensioners of the future are being bled of their funds, often without their knowledge. This is largely because pensions, pension funds and the national insurance fund are extremely technical and people do not realise what will happen to their pension until the time comes when they wish to claim it.
We have heard much today elsewhere in this place about occupational pension funds and the need to close loopholes so that we can prevent another Maxwell. Compared with the £6 billion rip-off of our state pension funds by the Conservatives, Robert Maxwell was a poor, dabbling amateur. I advise the Secretary of State for Social Security not to take too many boat trips in the near future. Were he to have neglected his fiduciary duty as a councillor in this way, he would be looking at the world now from

behind bars. Looser rules apply to central Government than to local government. There can be fewer clearer cases of Conservative double standards. At the same time as that £600 million is being put into private pensions, the ordinary single state pensioner finds that his or her pension is worth £17 a week less because Conservatives decided to break the link between pensions and the rise in earnings. The pension of a married couple is worth £28 a week less.

Miss Widdecombe: That does not have much to do with the rebate.

Mr. Allen: It is sad that the Minister says that from a sedentary position. She suggests that there is no great connection. It is clear from my examples that the hon. Lady and her fading Government support certain features of the pension industry but disregard the increases that state pensioners would have enjoyed had there been a Labour Government for the past 13 years instead of a Conservative Administration. As I have said, the married pensioner couple are £28 a week worse off while the loss to the single pensioner is £17 a week.

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman appears to be misleading the House. He is saying that there is a direct link between the level of the state pension and the rebate that we are giving on personal pensions. Will he confirm that the £6 billion which he quotes includes the ordinary contracted-out rebate for occupational schemes, which I take it the Labour party is not opposed to and has no plans to repeal? Does he understand that there will be a saving for the national insurance fund of about £0·2 billion a year as a result of our measures to encourage people into taking up personal pensions? If that is so and there is a saving to the fund, how can there be a direct link between the rebate and the level of the state pension?
As the hon. Gentleman is talking about levels of state pensions—this appears not to have been ruled out of order —surely the overall level of pensioners' incomes is what really matters. Those incomes have increased by 33 per cent. under this Conservative Government while under the Labour Government they increased by a miserable 3 per cent.

Mr. Allen: I am pleased that the Minister is paying due credit to the state earnings-related pension scheme, which was introduced by the Labour Government and which has done so much for pensioners' incomes. It would have done so much more had it not been tampered with by the Government. The concept of incomes for pensioners has been undermined by the way in which the Government have abused SERPS. At the same time £6 billion has been found to assist private pensions. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I am well aware that the National Audit Office produced a superb report that outlined the way in which the fund had been abused. The Minister will know all too well that the saving that has resulted from the failure to link pensions to the rise in earnings is now £21 billion. It is—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman a lot of leeway, but he has gone too far now. We must return to the question of rebates.

Mr. Allen: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely seeking to answer the Minister's questions as posed. They were, as you say, a little wide of the mark.
Pensioners have been sacrificed on the altar of the free market. The free pensions market is incapable of competing with the public sector without the prop or crutch of massive subsidies. Pension holders would have deserted private pensions in droves and returned to SERPS had the Conservatives not offered this pathetic bribe. It would have been a humiliation for the Government, they having already spent billions on trying falsely to inflate the private pension sector.
In a few weeks, the dirty, derelict, partial and unequal mess which masquerades as the Conservatives' pension policy will have to be hosed down. Then we can set about rebuilding SERPS, strengthening the state pensioners' basic income, protecting occupational pensioners and ensuring a bracing draught of equal treatment for private pensions. In each area of reform the pensioner and the prospective pensioner will be the beneficiary. That is what we shall do in four or five weeks' time.

Miss Widdecombe: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps I could reply to one or two points that have been spuriously raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). I should like to start with a challenge, as challenges are all the fashion. Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear whether the Labour party is saying that, in the unlikely event that it forms the next Government, it will remove the 2 per cent. incentive? If so, does he accept that there is no way that it can do that other than retrospectively over the course of the year? Is he saying that it will retrospectively remove the 2 per cent. incentive? Is he also saying that it will not implement the 1 per cent. incentive? That information is very necessary so that we know exactly what to tell the 4·7 million people in those schemes whose pensions, and the size of them, will depend on these policies.

Mr. Allen: The 1 per cent. proposal is not even before the House tonight, so we can only suspect that until the primary legislation is brought in all this is merely electioneering. It is hard to abolish something that is just a pre-election promise. If there is another Conservative Government, we shall see what they introduce. On the queston of the 2 per cent., I am pleased to refer the hon. Lady to what the future Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), said in the debate two weeks ago.

Miss Widdecombe: We can take that as confirmation that the Labour party would abolish the 2 per cent. retrospectively and not implement the 1 per cent. That message should go out to 4·7 million putative pensioners on modest incomes and to their families. We shall see exactly what credence the Labour party's pensions policy has with those who matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Social Security (Class 1 Contributions—Contracted-out Percentages) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 27th February, be approved.

Resolved,

That the draft State Scheme Premiums (Actuarial Tables) Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 27th February, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

That the draft Commonwealth Development Corporation (Raising of Limits on Borrowing and Advances) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 12th February, be approved—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

That the Birmingham Heartlands Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1992, dated 12th February 1992, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th February, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Question agreed to.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With the leave of the House, I shall put together the four motions on Representation of the People.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE

That the draft Representation of the People (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 17th February, be approved.
That the draft Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 14th February, be approved.
That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 14th February, be approved.
That the draft Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 21st February, be approved. —[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Question agreed to.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

SOCIAL SECURITY

That the draft Social Security (Contributions) Amendment (No. 4) Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 12th February, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT

That the draft Statutory Sick Pay (Small Employer's Relief) Amendment Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 19th February, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Question agreed to.

PETITION

Kirklees Council

Mr. Graham Riddick: I wish to present a petition to the House that calls for Kirklees council to be split and a new council, based on the Huddersfield area, to be created. The petition has 8,053 signatures by people both from within my constituency and from the remainder of Huddersfield. They no longer want councillors from Batley and Dewsbury to have a say in the affairs of their area. They do not identify with Kirklees, which many of them feel is too big, too bureaucratic and too unaccountable.
The petition follows a phone-in organised last year by the local newspaper, the Huddersfield Daily Examiner, when more than 14,000 people called for Kirklees to be split and only 400 supported the status quo.
I support the campaign to split Kirklees and I hope and believe that it will be successful. The petition states:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House, following consultation with the Local Government Boundary Commissioners, legislates to disband Kirklees council and create a local authority named Greater Huddersfield to incorporate Huddersfield, the Colne and Holme Valleys, Denby Dale, Kirkburton and parts of Mirfield.

To lie upon the Table

Magistrates Courts

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Mr. Roger Moate: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is here to respond to what I think is an important debate about the proposed closure of magistrates courts. I am delighted also that the anxiety of the House to reach this important item of business had brought its affairs to a conclusion rather earlier than expected. I hope that that is some compensation for any inconvenience that this early debate might cause.
There is a proposal to close the Faversham magistrates court. It has a history dating back to a Royal Charter of 1361. It is a local institution, much valued by the local community, local solicitors and local justices. It is almost certainly the best value courthouse in Kent. The saving from closure would be £17,000 per annum plus, perhaps, some of the clerks' time and other incidental costs. There are no capital or repair costs as the court is in accommodation rented from the borough council. It is very fine accommodation. The court room was modernised 10 years ago and there is a holding room, a retiring room, private facilities for justices, interview rooms for solicitors and waiting rooms. The court sits most days of most weeks. It is the very embodiment of what we in England think of as local justice, coupled with occasional visits not from local people, but from well-known outsiders such as Terry Wogan, who appeared on one occasion with great publicity. It is outstandingly good value for money.
As I will explain, we have gained a six-months reprieve, and I and others intend to use that time to get the Faversham decision reversed. If we are accused of being parochial, I plead guilty, but I think that we will have co-defendants throughout the land because hundreds of local courthouses are at risk. I have the document from the Kent magistrates courts committee outlining the scale of the threat to Kent. The same threat exists for other counties and districts throughout England—all arising from the need to meet the new funding formula introduced by the Home Office.
The Kent proposals are described as measures for consideration and are designed to meet a possible deficit of £682,000 by the end of a five-year transitional period. The proposal is to close Margate and Ramsgate courts or to amalgamate them, closing one courthouse. Either Ashford or Folkestone would be closed. In Medway, Dartford arid Gravesham, the benches would be amalgamated and one courthouse closed. In Canterbury, Faversham and Sittingbourne, the closure of Faversham is assumed and there is consideration of the closure of Sheerness. 1 n Maidstone, there is consideration of the amalgamation of the benches and the closure of West Mailing and Tonbridge. In west Kent, there is consideration of the closure of the Tunbridge Wells office and courthouse and the amalgamation of both benches.
Those are proposals and options and there will, of course, be much resistance. Some will undoubtedly be saved, but we should be quite clear that many will be lost and there will be a question mark against the future of all


of them for many years to come. That is the picture in Kent, where under the formula it is a losing county by a forecast amount of £682,000.
Other counties and districts are similarly at risk. The list shows more than 30 losing areas. East Sussex loses 20 per cent. of its budget—£860,000; Bedfordshire loses £405,000; Cheshire £809,000; Cornwall £318,000; Hereford and Worcester £722,000—and I could continue. Hundreds of local courts will close unless the formula is modified. I hope that other right hon. and hon. Members will note the prospective losses in income to their counties and districts, translate them into the effect that they will have on local court houses, and make their concerns known to my right hon. Friend the Minister.
I appreciate the helpful and courteous way in which my right hon. Friend the Minister responded to the representations that I and a number of my hon. Friends representing Kent constituencies made, once the scale of the threat became clear. My right hon. Friend also set out in a written answer on 6 February the policy guidelines for the closure of magistrates courts and said that he would, within those guidelines, take a robust but sympathetic view of any closure proposals that came before him.
That answer was, as one would expect of the Home Office, skilfully worded, but I take comfort from my right hon. Friend's commitment to the principle of a quality local service for communities. I also infer a commitment even to smaller local courthouses—except where buildings are old and unsuitable, lacking facilities, and are costly to maintain or repair. I deduce also from my right hon. Friend's reply that court committees should not assume that arguments of so-called efficiency should inevitably lead to the closure of small courthouses.
A significant problem is that a proposal to close a court house will not be referred to the Minister responsible unless the local paying authority—in our case, Kent county council—decides to appeal against the decision. In the case of Faversham, I was shocked when, after a series of discussions and representations, the county council felt that it could not enter an objection.
For some historic reason that is not clear to me, the local paying authority contributes 20 per cent. to the cost of running magistrates courts. I hope that the Home Office or the Lord Chancellor's Department will seriously consider abandoning that system, particularly in the light of the reorganisation of court administration, and that which is certain to take place in local government.
I see no logical reason why we should persist with a system whereby local authorities pay 20 per cent. towards the maintenance and running of magistrates courts. If it were discontinued, we might enter into a simpler and more efficient arrangement. Meanwhile, it is even more indefensible that county councils and other paying authorities should have the right to determine whether or not there is to be an appeal.
On 1 April, responsibility for magistrates courts will be transferred from the Home Office to the Lord Chancellor's Department, when a new junior Minister will be appointed. We do not know who he or she will be. I do not wish that post upon my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, but we know for certain that the person appointed will be a Conservative Member of Parliament.
Incidentally, my remarks are addressed as much to my right hon. Friend as to the Lord Chancellor, their successors, and those working in Departments who interpret the policy and wishes of our Ministers and of the legislation.
I request that all closures should henceforth be referred to the Lord Chancellor, and that the necesary amendments to legislation should be promptly introduced after the general election. Only in that way can local views be heard. Under the present system, the question whether an appeal will be made is arbitrarily determined by the county council. If it does not choose that course—perhaps for reasonable, internal, and possibly financial reasons—local opinion, local councillors, and local justices have no right to be heard. That cannot be fair and proper.
On this occasion, I am supported only by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed), who is in his place, though I suspect that I have the support also of others of my hon. Friends who represent Kent constituencies. I do not doubt that in the coming months, as the proposal's true implications begin to be understood, we will be joined by right hon. and hon. Members representing constituencies throughout England.
The only way that we can achieve a fair hearing is if the system is changed. I am convinced that we need to re-examine the way that the new, cash-limit funding formula operates. I suspect that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends will press for that to happen. As soon as the new Ministers are known, I and my hon. Friends will seek a meeting with the Lord Chancellor to discuss the issue. Any help that my right hon. Friend the Minister can give now or then will be greatly valued.
There is no objection to cash limits. Even those who are responsible for administration reacted constructively to that concept. There has already been a healthy response to the financing arrangements, but there are objections to the use of a formula that produces wide swings in funding. What is the logic of a system that, for example, takes £680,000 from Kent and gives nearly £1 million to Avon? Is it suggested that Avon is not bringing enough prosecutions because it does not have the court facilities? I think not. Why take money from another county? It could be argued that it is inefficient, but why bestow a gift on another part of the United Kingdom simply because it is not performing its proper duties? The whole system is fundamentally flawed and ought to be reviewed.
One of the formula's main components is the number of prosecutions, but that is not something that courts can control. Magistrates cannot determine the number of prosecutions that are brought. Kent crime figures, I am sad to say, are on the increase—but for some reason the number of prosecutions brought in the county is significantly below that of our neighbours. If Kent's ratio of defendants per 1,000 population rose over the next year to equal the average for the south-east, under the formula its funding would increase significantly—but by then many of Kent's courthouses might have closed.
The Home Office accepts that the accuracy of all such data should be verified by external auditors, but surely that work should be undertaken before courthouses are closed and staff are made redundant. We want the formula examined now, before it is too late.
The argument is about the distribution of resources, not cuts. Kent's figure for 1992–93 will be nearly £7 million, or 19 per cent. higher than 1990–91. The argument is not against building modern courthouses and closing


inefficient courthouses. It is a powerful argument for a more sensitive and more intelligent application of funding that helps to maintain local justice and the local magistracy wherever we possibly and sensibly can.
That judgment must take into account all costs to public funds, as was mentioned in my right hon. Friend's written answer. It must take into account also the time and expenses incurred by the general public in travelling to courthouses that might be a great distance away, and the cost to the legal aid fund of solicitors who will be required to travel to distant courts because a local facility has been lost. In Faversham's case, it is estimated that additional legal aid costs alone would probably outweigh the supposed saving achieved by closing that court.
We have gained a six-month reprieve for Faversham, thanks to the open-mindedness of the magistrates committee in responding to the many representations it has received, and to the work done by Mr. John Gorham —an ex-political opponent of mine, who is chairman of the local bench. That demonstrates that ours is an all-party effort that has no political angle. It is due also to the work of many others—but no thanks to Kent county council, whose response greatly disappointed me.
I make no bones about it. I want to use this reprieve, and the Faversham proposal, as a lever to protect our Kent network of local courts, and to change the cash-limits formula. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that the Lord Chancellor receives that message, and that there is a general understanding in Whitehall of the need to respond to all the Members of Parliament who are defending our system of local justice, and who will continue to do so in the coming months.

Mr. Keith Speed: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) on the temperate and moderate way in which he has raised an important subject. He has talked about Kent, but, as he has pointed out, the problem extends to other parts of the country. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for the courtesy and helpfulness with which he received us on 22 January to discuss these matters.
I shall not repeat the arguments that have already been advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham. Let me simply say that I largely agree not only with his general comments, but with the specific proposals that he has put to our right hon. Friend. For instance, he mentioned the courthouse in my constituency.
The debate is timely; only this afternoon, I heard from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport that the new international station was to be built in the centre of Ashford, serving both Network SouthEast and the channel tunnel trains. It will bring many benefits not only to the community of Ashford, but to east Kent, east Sussex and that part of England generally. I am delighted, because I have been fighting for such a development for a long time; inevitably, however, it will mean more criminals trying to smuggle in drugs or people, or simply involving themselves in general criminal activities.
That, coupled with the opening of the channel tunnel next autumn, will place a heavy burden on the law enforcement agencies in my constituency, my hon. Friend's constituency and the constituency of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and

Hythe (Mr. Howard), where the tunnel is situated. It is therefore important that facilities are provided locally for cases to be tried.
Let me now strike a positive note, which I hope will appeal to my right hon. Friend the Minister. When the proposals were mooted, a committee was set up in Ashford, under the chairmanship of Mr. Barnes: he has done extremely well, concentrating on the greater utilisation of the Ashford court and the need to improve its cash flow, and to ensure that it is properly used and housed in a modern, purpose-built courthouse sited alongside the police station. That is a good way of ensuring that the courthouse will stay open and will, as it were, pay its way.
I thoroughly applaud all the efforts that are being made. We want to see the maximum utilisation of space, and those in charge of courthouses with surplus space that is not being used properly should bear that in mind. I also hope that we can remove the swords of Damocles that are hanging over courthouses not only in Kent but elsewhere. I mention Kent particularly because it is a fast-growing region which contains the channel tunnel and involves a number of other activities that will inevitably increase the load.
Some people—not many—have said that this is part of the Government's cuts. I have tried to disabuse them, but even law firms in my constituency have been trying to make political points on the subject. I consider that attitude to be thoroughly unjustified, but it exists, and I have a slight feeling that it is tied up with the way in which we are funding legal aid. Perhaps I have a nasty suspicious mind.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister will give careful consideration to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and me. Certainly, none of us wants inefficient, under-utilised courthouses, with no consideration given to ways in which staff and buildings could be better used. Equally, none of us wants local justice to become no longer local: we do not want defendants, witnesses, solicitors and clerks to have to travel long distances for the sake of some formula that may or may not be working properly.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give us some assurances, and will join me in paying tribute to the very good work that is being done by most of our courts, particularly those in Kent.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): This debate is important for justice in Kent. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) both on his good fortune in securing it, and on the powerful way in which he set out his case. He did the same when, in January, he discussed the issue with me, along with our hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed), whom I am pleased to see in the Chamber.
I was extremely pleased to hear both my hon. Friends comment on the fact that overall expenditure on the magistrates courts is currently being expanded. Figures show that, in real terms—taking inflation into account —we are spending half as much again as we were spending in 1979. The service is in extremely good condition, and is growing—as was demonstrated by the published public expenditure programme announced in the autumn by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Having said that, I must make one thing clear: I am as wedded to the concept of local justice as are my hon. Friends. My constituency is, in some respects, not dissimilar to theirs, and I too want the provision of good access to local justice. That is not to say that every courthouse in the country is in a state of grace—some are pretty run-down—or that every courthouse is necessarily particularly well utilised or well run. In such a large service, it would be amazing if that were the case. I stress, however, that we seek to introduce efficiencies within increasing public expenditure, while at the same time taking into account the pressing need for local justice and the traditions of such justice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham would like to turn the present system inside out and start again. Perhaps he is right—and I shall make sure that tomorrow my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor receives a copy of the report of our debate. My hon. Friend is saying that the present system is inadequate because it does not provide sufficient access for local people who wish to make known their views about proposed courthouse closures—unless the paying authority, in this case Kent county council, chooses to apply to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for a review of the decision.
That is the position under the current law. My hon. Friend, in effect, wants new legislation, because considerable changes in statute law would be needed to bring about the circumstances that he considers desirable. I shall bring that to the attention of the Lord Chancellor, as he will assume responsibility for the magistrates courts from 1 April. Only tonight, I attended the farewell party—or wake—of the Home Office division that is to be transferred, with no fee, to administer the service in the Lord Chancellor's Department from 1 April. It has given very good public service.

Mr. Moate: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend. I wish merely to say that even I could draft a very simple amendment to the present legislation to ensure that others had the right to generate an appeal.

Mr. Patten: Certainly, C2 division—that is what it is called; that is my contribution to open government tonight—could do it just like that, but a Bill would be needed. Indeed, such a Bill will have to be presented to the House in due course to make other changes to the service, consistent with the proposals in the White Paper published a few days ago by the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. That cannot be too far away; the Bill must come down the track fairly quickly after the next general election. Such a development will certainly give my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham an opportunity to make his points in the next year or two—I cannot anticipate future Gracious Speeches.
At present, decisions about whether courthouses should remain open—like most other decisions affecting the courts service—are primarily local decisions made by magistrates courts committees, in conjunction with their paying authorities. In our view, it is right for such decisions to continue to be made locally: only in that way can proper attention be paid to the full range of issues.
That, I think, is where my hon. Friend sees a fault. He envisages full consideration of issues locally, but notes that, if local people's views are not taken into account and

no appeal is made to the Home Secretary, they will have no right of appeal. I sense that he feels that there is an injustice in the way in which local justice is administered, and I understand what he has said. At the moment, only as a matter of last resort, if agreement cannot be reached between a court committee and its paying authority, would the matter be passed to the Home Secretary or, after 1 April, to my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor.
Those procedures are part of a separate process for determining court accommodation under the Justices of the Peace Act 1979—not such an ancient statute. Under the provisions of that Act, magistrates courts' accommodation is a matter for the committee to determine, in consultation with the paying authority which meets 20 per cent. of the overall costs, the balance being met by Government grant.
The paying authority's input—both the 20 per cent. contribution towards the running costs and the consultative role that it carries out with the court committee to take account of local interests—is very much part of the system. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham, in his radical and reforming speech, said that that should also be done away with and that, as I understand it, there should be 100 per cent. Government funding.
I will have to draw those two substantial matters to the attention of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor—first, the unfettered right of appeal to a Secretary of State by people who do not like the local decision, and, secondly, that, not satisfied with cash limits, we should move to 100 per cent. funding of magistrates courts. However, I might have misunderstood my hon. Friend.

Mr. Moate: I do not think that my right hon. Friend has misunderstood, but I do not wish to appear as radical as he suggests. If, as seems likely from the Welsh precedent, we are to move to unitary authorities within a local government structure, we will have to rethink the paying authority and who will determine such matters. During that rethink, it seems logical that we should reconsider the sort of matter that we are discussing.

Mr. Patten: I hope that my hon. Friend realised that I was speaking in tease marks when I used the word "radical".
The third matter that I must draw to the attention of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is the subject that my hon. Friend has just brought to the attention of the House—the local government reorganisations, which will be introduced on a rolling basis, should local communities so decide. I do not know what the situation is in Kent, but already in that part of my constituency which used to be in Berkshire people are looking forward to the reintroduction of Berkshire. Many of my constituents write to me from Abingdon on Thames, Berkshire, rather than Oxfordshire.
During the next few years, there will be all sorts of fundamental changes. There may well be unitary authorities. I cannot pre-empt the decision of the Local Government Commission, which will look into applications from local people perhaps to introduce different tiers or single-tier authorities. However, my hon. Friend is right as that will have considerable implications for the administration of local justice. Also, it will have considerable implications for the administation of the police service, which we will also have to consider. I see


that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham has the assent of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, and he is right to draw the attention of the House to the fact that we must consider the matter in the round.
Tonight, the plate is full with three separate ingredients for possible future reforms in the way in which we look after the magistrates courts service. The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham was extremely valuable in drawing attention to some of the problems which may come before it during the next few years, especially if there is legislation.
While there may be amalgamations and a few closures —there have been only a few recently—in the five-year period from 1991–92 to 1995–96, 28 new courthouses have been opened or are being built, providing 185 new court

rooms. Perhaps that is the other side of the coin which I need to put before the House. Many of those new courthouses and court rooms will have the most up-to-date facilities. While a period of change and of challenge is before us, there will also be a period of considerable growth.
I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend in the House on such issues, when they will undoubtedly be handled from the Dispatch Box by that entirely new being to whom he referred, a junior Minister representing the Lord Chancellor's Department in this place.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Nine o'clock.